In another context, detached from Reddit burning, I feel like this could be an improvement; but only if done right. Here odds are that they’d do it wrong, rushed, and it would make the subreddits worse instead of better.
The main problem that I see is how to define who’s part of the community, and who isn’t, in a form that:
prioritises content creators over lurkers
prioritises lurkers over people who don’t engage the community, not even passively
avoids bots flinging decisions back and forth
avoids raiding/brigading skewing up the votes
There’s also the issue with conflicts of interest between 2+ legit chunks of the community. Specially on the scope of a community, if “wide” (shallow content, but more approachable for everyone) or “deep” (well-developed content, but less approachable for most people). If done wrong you’d have only “wide” communities, and people who want deeper discussions would be effectively deplatformed.
Those things are not unsolvable matters, mind you. But I don’t think that Reddit is able to solve them before crashing.
Actually… Reddit has been experimenting with this for a few years in r/cryptocurrency where people earn “moons” depending on a series of rules based on their engagement, submissions, number of upvotes, community participation, and so on.
It’s mostly led to people gambling the system to earn money.
I definitely don’t think the current system is ready to be deployed on a site wide scale, but it would be interesting to see them try 🍿🍿
That’s interesting. I wonder how much of the gambling was intrinsic to the idea, and how much it was caused by how and where (like, you’re dropping a new crypto in a comm where people try to make money from crypto. Of course you’ll get some abuse)
Another scenario that could ruin this idea would be well-organised infiltration - like a half dozen posters coordinating to game the system together, so they have more power than they should, until they can force the community to become something else.
but it would be interesting to see them try 🍿🍿
Yes! Specially pre-IPO. Investors really do not like things changing suddenly, as they increase the associated risk.
In another context, detached from Reddit burning, I feel like this could be an improvement; but only if done right. Here odds are that they’d do it wrong, rushed, and it would make the subreddits worse instead of better.
The main problem that I see is how to define who’s part of the community, and who isn’t, in a form that:
There’s also the issue with conflicts of interest between 2+ legit chunks of the community. Specially on the scope of a community, if “wide” (shallow content, but more approachable for everyone) or “deep” (well-developed content, but less approachable for most people). If done wrong you’d have only “wide” communities, and people who want deeper discussions would be effectively deplatformed.
Those things are not unsolvable matters, mind you. But I don’t think that Reddit is able to solve them before crashing.
Actually… Reddit has been experimenting with this for a few years in r/cryptocurrency where people earn “moons” depending on a series of rules based on their engagement, submissions, number of upvotes, community participation, and so on.
It’s mostly led to people gambling the system to earn money.
I definitely don’t think the current system is ready to be deployed on a site wide scale, but it would be interesting to see them try 🍿🍿
That’s interesting. I wonder how much of the gambling was intrinsic to the idea, and how much it was caused by how and where (like, you’re dropping a new crypto in a comm where people try to make money from crypto. Of course you’ll get some abuse)
Another scenario that could ruin this idea would be well-organised infiltration - like a half dozen posters coordinating to game the system together, so they have more power than they should, until they can force the community to become something else.
Yes! Specially pre-IPO. Investors really do not like things changing suddenly, as they increase the associated risk.