But that’s fine you like it; I don’t actually like community “promotion.” Mob mentality has just as much possibility of promoting bad content as it does good content. The current Stanley Cup craze is a great example of the community boosting something beyond its credible limits, and Pizzagate is a great example of people weaponizing that same human behavior.
If something is bad, I would rather see evidence in the comments, not some numbers that may or may not represent reality. It’s a dangerous path when we start letting others think critically for us and decide the things we should and shouldn’t like.
If someone has evidence that something is wrong they should definitely comment, but an at least as valuable service they can do for their fellow readers is make it less likely they’ll ever see that incorrect post in the first place. You’re only going to scroll for so long and see so many posts, somehow the decision on what the top posts are needs to be made. If not the collective judgment of the readers, what’s a better way of making that choice? As I said, the actual existing other options seem to be some kind of algorithm, usually tracking you and giving you content based on your past activity, or some person just decides. Neither seems like a stronger protection against promoting bad content than letting readers decide to upvote or downvote.
somehow the decision on what the top posts are needs to be made.
Right, and I’m saying it’s already effective as a positive-only system. Bad actors won’t get lots of upvotes by nature, but it also means good-faith dissent won’t be hidden by a bunch of 14yos who are mad you critiqued their <insert favorite thing>.
It’s true that you’ll only scroll so far, but that’s true whether downvotes exist or not. Better to let people decide, "This is worth something,’ and boost it than have people force it to the bottom without explanation or justification.
Oh I think the negative feedback is also an important part of that system. Without them you get too much dumb content that appeals to some minority of people who are fooled by it while others are helpless to take action to bury it.
Didn’t mean post OP, meant the comment OP.
But that’s fine you like it; I don’t actually like community “promotion.” Mob mentality has just as much possibility of promoting bad content as it does good content. The current Stanley Cup craze is a great example of the community boosting something beyond its credible limits, and Pizzagate is a great example of people weaponizing that same human behavior.
If something is bad, I would rather see evidence in the comments, not some numbers that may or may not represent reality. It’s a dangerous path when we start letting others think critically for us and decide the things we should and shouldn’t like.
If someone has evidence that something is wrong they should definitely comment, but an at least as valuable service they can do for their fellow readers is make it less likely they’ll ever see that incorrect post in the first place. You’re only going to scroll for so long and see so many posts, somehow the decision on what the top posts are needs to be made. If not the collective judgment of the readers, what’s a better way of making that choice? As I said, the actual existing other options seem to be some kind of algorithm, usually tracking you and giving you content based on your past activity, or some person just decides. Neither seems like a stronger protection against promoting bad content than letting readers decide to upvote or downvote.
Right, and I’m saying it’s already effective as a positive-only system. Bad actors won’t get lots of upvotes by nature, but it also means good-faith dissent won’t be hidden by a bunch of 14yos who are mad you critiqued their <insert favorite thing>.
It’s true that you’ll only scroll so far, but that’s true whether downvotes exist or not. Better to let people decide, "This is worth something,’ and boost it than have people force it to the bottom without explanation or justification.
Oh I think the negative feedback is also an important part of that system. Without them you get too much dumb content that appeals to some minority of people who are fooled by it while others are helpless to take action to bury it.