Gah, school started again and work got busy. Not going to be around here too much the next few weeks sans the weekends. Oh well. It seems like everybody else said what I would say. I do agree with the sense of ownership. I think it has to do with the importance of snaps. It really feels like you are building your personal brand at the same time as actually being a member of the community. People follow you and are interested in your content so you feel the need to maintain a certain level of quality with your content. However, because of the other features of the site, you still get that entire reddit feel. This encourages the openness of the reddit community while also discouraging low-effort content.
The only real disadvantage of this is that people will be more scared of being downvoted because it hurts their own reputation, much more than it does on reddit. It is not a problem now because we have a great community, but as we grow, it will be harder and harder to have this sort of self-policing. We need to find a way of encouraging judicious downvotes. Simply pointing to voting guidelines (like reddit) and saying "That's not what its for" doesn't work. We need to give people a better reason to not downvote immaturely besides saying it is improper site etiquette.
I think the reputation concept is explained rather well in the faq:
Your reputation score is the sum of collected votes that illustrates the dynamically changing feedback from your more recent engagements based on up/down votes received from the rest of the Snapzu community.
A good way to visualize reputation is to imagine a literal pool that holds a limited amount of up and down votes instead of water. As time passes incoming votes will replace (spill out) the oldest votes and thus change the ratio within the pool. Your reputation score is the number of up votes vs the number of down votes currently in that pool which changes daily.
Because reputation needs to be contextual, it cannot be a forever increasing number where the user with the most reputation has the highest score, this wouldn't really be considered reputation as there is no benchmark to compare it to and would be useless in the context of what reputation should represent.
Because reputation is calculated from a ratio (up vs down votes) and then converted into a number represented by a percentage it can never truly reach 100%. In addition, as Snapzu's community grows, the benchmark score (currently 99%) will decrease as the number of users and their general approach to down voting increases.
This means that a peak reputation today will not be attainable a few months down the road. Don't panic however, this is all relative to the benchmark score which is dictated by the ever changing landscape of the Snapzu community!
Here is my take on it... The benchmark score of 99% (notice its already not possible to hit 100%) today may be 87% three months from now and it would be perfectly normal for everyone that has 87% to be extremely happy that they have the top reputation score at the time. No matter what you try, some people will downvote, and it's the same concept with literally everything else we don't want people doing.
Here are some examples: Some people will drive drunk, s...
I think the reputation concept is explained rather well in the faq:
Your reputation score is the sum of collected votes that illustrates the dynamically changing feedback from your more recent engagements based on up/down votes received from the rest of the Snapzu community.
A good way to visualize reputation is to imagine a literal pool that holds a limited amount of up and down votes instead of water. As time passes incoming votes will replace (spill out) the oldest votes and thus change the ratio within the pool. Your reputation score is the number of up votes vs the number of down votes currently in that pool which changes daily.
Because reputation needs to be contextual, it cannot be a forever increasing number where the user with the most reputation has the highest score, this wouldn't really be considered reputation as there is no benchmark to compare it to and would be useless in the context of what reputation should represent.
Because reputation is calculated from a ratio (up vs down votes) and then converted into a number represented by a percentage it can never truly reach 100%. In addition, as Snapzu's community grows, the benchmark score (currently 99%) will decrease as the number of users and their general approach to down voting increases.
This means that a peak reputation today will not be attainable a few months down the road. Don't panic however, this is all relative to the benchmark score which is dictated by the ever changing landscape of the Snapzu community!
Here is my take on it... The benchmark score of 99% (notice its already not possible to hit 100%) today may be 87% three months from now and it would be perfectly normal for everyone that has 87% to be extremely happy that they have the top reputation score at the time. No matter what you try, some people will downvote, and it's the same concept with literally everything else we don't want people doing.
Here are some examples: Some people will drive drunk, some people will shoplift, some people will commit violence offences, some won't pick up their dog's shit. The list goes on into an endless loops of people doing stuff that the majority of others would fine illegal, mean, self centered, etc. This is to be expected, its called a reputation score for a reason, when was the last time an American president had 100% approval rating? There will always be people that will down vote, the most important thing is, we shouldn't care about reaching the 100% just like a 100 meter sprint runner will never run it in 1 second.
I understand, but I think it makes some assumptions about human nature that can't be depended on to be universal. I'm talking about people who like to play rules lawyer and find a way to game any system they touch. I see the results of such behavior everywhere in reddit, including some of the subreddits I still like to contribute to. Such people will gladly sacrifice their reputation if it means they can promote an agenda or just see how they can manipulate the system. Reddit has a large pool of trolls and ideologues who have karma scores in the negative as the price for what they're trying to achieve. Some used to hold contests to see who could go lowest and how quickly before reddit put a cap on it.
I don't want to come off like I'm telling you how to run the site. It's your space and your vision. I have no intention of interfering with it. But there are lessons I've learned from reddit and I hope you'll bear them in mind.
Every system can be gamed, not a single system in the world is bullet proof and never will be. However a good system depends on society (community) and the people that are a part of it to diminish the effects others have on gaming that system. This is explained with the benchmark reputation score dropping until it evens out at a number that takes into account "the gaming of the system". From what you mentioned there is two things that are of concern to you. 1. People downvoting others mercilessly, without cause or reason other than to be a "troll", and 2. doing whatever is needed (trolling) to get as many downvotes as possible.
I think the first problem is handled well with the flexible reputation benchmark, and as for #2... Unlike on reddit, you cannot have a negative reputation score, so instead you will see a ratio of up votes vs down votes represented by a percentage, like 32%, I don't know about you but that's pretty boring of an accomplishment and I'm sure it would be easy enough to build in functionality that will punish those with an extremely low reputation score. But then again, how much do we want the system to be in charge of?
PS. You didn't come off as negative, you strike me as someone that sees the potential in this platform and is worried that it might fall due to it growing and being effected by other not so friendly individuals. Your questions have merit and I think need to be answered as well as the topic needs to be discussed. Such a democratic approach is complex, so we need to understand how we all play a role in this system.
From what you mentioned there is two things that are of concern to you. 1. People downvoting others mercilessly, without cause or reason other than to be a "troll", and 2. doing whatever is needed (trolling) to get as many downvotes as possible.
There's a third I mentioned as well: not just trolls who think it's fun to be disruptive but ideologues who accept low reputation and penalties as the price for accomplishing their goals such as the Digg Patriots and the Libertarian downvote squad on reddit in 2012. That such behavior is technically against site rules doesn't stop them from risking banning, shadowbanning or other penalties.
I don't know about you but that's pretty boring of an accomplishment and I'm sure it would be easy enough to build in functionality that will punish those with an extremely low reputation score.
I agree, it's a silly accomplishment. And yet there are people who like to play that way.
But then again, how much do we want the system to be in charge of?
I have no clue. I agree that the system should be community driven as much as possible. Even when it gets gamed I think the community should decide what it wants to see and what it considers appropriate. That attitude does not make me popular with some moderators. ;) My earlier proposal is a thought on reinforcing community voting and diminish the impact of ideologues who have an axe to grind and don't care what cost they must pay in the process.
PS. You didn't come off as negative, you strike me as someone that sees the potential in this platform and is worried that it might fall due to it growing and being effected by other not so friendly individuals. Your questions have merit and I think need to be answered as well as the topic needs to be discussed. Such a democratic approach is complex, so we need to understand how we all play a role in this system.
I appreciate that. I understand that I can come off as aggressive or at least passionate when I argue. I'll someti...
From what you mentioned there is two things that are of concern to you. 1. People downvoting others mercilessly, without cause or reason other than to be a "troll", and 2. doing whatever is needed (trolling) to get as many downvotes as possible.
There's a third I mentioned as well: not just trolls who think it's fun to be disruptive but ideologues who accept low reputation and penalties as the price for accomplishing their goals such as the Digg Patriots and the Libertarian downvote squad on reddit in 2012. That such behavior is technically against site rules doesn't stop them from risking banning, shadowbanning or other penalties.
I don't know about you but that's pretty boring of an accomplishment and I'm sure it would be easy enough to build in functionality that will punish those with an extremely low reputation score.
I agree, it's a silly accomplishment. And yet there are people who like to play that way.
But then again, how much do we want the system to be in charge of?
I have no clue. I agree that the system should be community driven as much as possible. Even when it gets gamed I think the community should decide what it wants to see and what it considers appropriate. That attitude does not make me popular with some moderators. ;) My earlier proposal is a thought on reinforcing community voting and diminish the impact of ideologues who have an axe to grind and don't care what cost they must pay in the process.
PS. You didn't come off as negative, you strike me as someone that sees the potential in this platform and is worried that it might fall due to it growing and being effected by other not so friendly individuals. Your questions have merit and I think need to be answered as well as the topic needs to be discussed. Such a democratic approach is complex, so we need to understand how we all play a role in this system.
I appreciate that. I understand that I can come off as aggressive or at least passionate when I argue. I'll sometimes include disclaimers to remind people I'm not calling them idiots when I argue my case.
There's a third I mentioned as well: not just trolls who think it's fun to be disruptive but ideologues who accept low reputation and penalties as the price for accomplishing their goals such as the Digg Patriots and the Libertarian downvote squad on reddit in 2012. That such behavior is technically against site rules doesn't stop them from risking banning, shadowbanning or other penalties.
While I believe the negative effect that low reputation score individuals have on the community should diminish the lower their reputation score gets (ie. their down votes would have no effect on rep), I don't think we should do more in the form of creating additional functionality that automatically bans these members. The reason why I think it's important that these individuals shouldn't be banned is the same reason why Ellen Pao is having a hard time on reddit, and else where.
People shouldn't be afraid to express themselves and their opinions no matter how ridiculous they may appear to a majority. As long as their form of expression follows rules set fourth to keep things flowing, we shouldn't as administrators interfere in those interactions, let alone go around banning everyone with an unpopular opinion. Having said that, anyone that breaks the ToS by trolling, abusing, doxxing and or harassing others should still expect to get the good ole boot.
I agree, it's a silly accomplishment. And yet there are people who like to play that way.
It's human nature to try and be different, even if it means to harass other people in order to reach the opposite end of the scale. That type of activity needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis with full transparency so that the community can be aware of what happens.
I have no clue. I agree that the system should be community driven as much as possible. Even when it gets gamed I think the community should decide what it wants to see and what it considers appropriate. That attitude does not make me popular with so...
There's a third I mentioned as well: not just trolls who think it's fun to be disruptive but ideologues who accept low reputation and penalties as the price for accomplishing their goals such as the Digg Patriots and the Libertarian downvote squad on reddit in 2012. That such behavior is technically against site rules doesn't stop them from risking banning, shadowbanning or other penalties.
While I believe the negative effect that low reputation score individuals have on the community should diminish the lower their reputation score gets (ie. their down votes would have no effect on rep), I don't think we should do more in the form of creating additional functionality that automatically bans these members. The reason why I think it's important that these individuals shouldn't be banned is the same reason why Ellen Pao is having a hard time on reddit, and else where.
People shouldn't be afraid to express themselves and their opinions no matter how ridiculous they may appear to a majority. As long as their form of expression follows rules set fourth to keep things flowing, we shouldn't as administrators interfere in those interactions, let alone go around banning everyone with an unpopular opinion. Having said that, anyone that breaks the ToS by trolling, abusing, doxxing and or harassing others should still expect to get the good ole boot.
I agree, it's a silly accomplishment. And yet there are people who like to play that way.
It's human nature to try and be different, even if it means to harass other people in order to reach the opposite end of the scale. That type of activity needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis with full transparency so that the community can be aware of what happens.
I have no clue. I agree that the system should be community driven as much as possible. Even when it gets gamed I think the community should decide what it wants to see and what it considers appropriate. That attitude does not make me popular with some moderators. ;) My earlier proposal is a thought on reinforcing community voting and diminish the impact of ideologues who have an axe to grind and don't care what cost they must pay in the process.
It is exactly what this platform is trying to do with its reputation and levels. Sure your opinion may not be popular with a majority, but just because your opinion is not embraced doesn't mean it's wrong or better yet, somehow deserving a ban. The people that have "an axe to grind" will do it within the rules set fourth by our administrators, if they break any of those rules they will become a part of the "case by case" process. Otherwise, everything else should be left for the community and our system to mitigate.
While I believe the negative effect that low reputation score individuals have on the community should diminish the lower their reputation score gets (ie. their down votes would have no effect on rep), I don't think we should do more in the form of creating additional functionality that automatically bans these members. The reason why I think it's important that these individuals shouldn't be banned is the same reason why Ellen Pao is having a hard time on reddit, and else where.
I think you misunderstand me. I don't think anyone should be banned unless they're demonstrably disruptive. Reddit identified a group of people whom they could demonstrate were genuinely disruptive and brought the hammer down on them. I don't disagree with that action.
But bans should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. Certainly the conditions under which someone can be banned should be clearly spelled out. I absolutely don't think anyone should be banned for espousing an unpopular opinion. Automatic bans should never be done. But I think there are ways that people who just want to be contrary can be discouraged from being disruptive.
The people that have "an axe to grind" will do it within the rules set fourth by our administrators, if they break any of those rules they will become a part of the "case by case" process. Otherwise, everything else should be left for the community and our system to mitigate.
I think you misunderstand me. I don't think anyone should be banned unless they're demonstrably disruptive. Reddit identified a group of people whom they could demonstrate were genuinely disruptive and brought the hammer down on them. I don't disagree with that action.
I didn't misunderstand you, and I know you aren't in favor of automatic banning. I just wanted to clarify this for anyone else reading our exchange. I'm happy we're in agreement /u/spaceghoti.
What if downvotes provoked a small hit on our own stats? Perhaps the more people downvoting the same thing the smaller the hit to each individual? That way downvotes come at a cost but you're vindicated if the content warrants the behavior. They'd probably want to take this away from brand new accounts, though.
The danger there is the promotion of groupthink, but like the abuse of downvotes it's hard to avoid.
Should the site ever grow large enough, I predict you will experience large groups of people looking to game the system ala reddit's despicable /r/TheoryofReddit.
I read it and it was a good comment, but I think it's a mistake to assume that this can be sustained in the event that the site really does take off. Such a stable environment is possible in a small online community but less so in a larger one. I'm not suggesting you should penalize users for behavior they haven't yet engaged in but I do think it's important to be aware of the danger that there are always going to be people who derive enjoyment from gaming the mechanism of any website they join.
/r/TheoryofReddit isn't that bad. Sure, there are a few people just trying to game the system, but I love going there and seeing the interesting takes on how reddit functions. It really makes you understand the underlying culture of reddit from a numerical perspective rather than just the perspective of a user.
The question is however... should it be avoided? How much more control should we give the system? I for one am perfectly happy with a lesser average as long as everyone is effected by the same exact system. I imagine it like inflation effecting currency, it doesn't matter who has it, everyone that has it is affected equally.
That's the big question. How do you balance free speech and open expression with a stable, positive community? What do you do with the inevitable trolls who get their kicks out of disrupting communities and exploiting loopholes? The more users come here from reddit, digg or other social media sites the more of an issue this is going to become. However you decide to deal with it, you should at least be aware that it's coming.
Agreed, it's an important subject and believe me I don't think it's being ignored or down played.
It's funny you should bring up digg, because that is the perfect example of a team of admins that did everything wrong. They saw a problem with their system that sadly couldn't handle being gamed, as well as no active solution on how to absorb the effects of the problem. So instead of tweaking the system, and working towards allowing the community to mitigate the issue they completely overhauled it, gave themselves all the power and cut out the community all together. This ended really badly for them.
So, I think the goal here is to approach it from an angle that empowers the community by building the foundation and creating the tools that are capable in off-setting the negative effects of the negative/abusive minority.
Gah, school started again and work got busy. Not going to be around here too much the next few weeks sans the weekends. Oh well. It seems like everybody else said what I would say. I do agree with the sense of ownership. I think it has to do with the importance of snaps. It really feels like you are building your personal brand at the same time as actually being a member of the community. People follow you and are interested in your content so you feel the need to maintain a certain level of quality with your content. However, because of the other features of the site, you still get that entire reddit feel. This encourages the openness of the reddit community while also discouraging low-effort content.
The only real disadvantage of this is that people will be more scared of being downvoted because it hurts their own reputation, much more than it does on reddit. It is not a problem now because we have a great community, but as we grow, it will be harder and harder to have this sort of self-policing. We need to find a way of encouraging judicious downvotes. Simply pointing to voting guidelines (like reddit) and saying "That's not what its for" doesn't work. We need to give people a better reason to not downvote immaturely besides saying it is improper site etiquette.
I think the reputation concept is explained rather well in the faq:
Here is my take on it... The benchmark score of 99% (notice its already not possible to hit 100%) today may be 87% three months from now and it would be perfectly normal for everyone that has 87% to be extremely happy that they have the top reputation score at the time. No matter what you try, some people will downvote, and it's the same concept with literally everything else we don't want people doing.
Here are some examples: Some people will drive drunk, s...
... Read FullI understand, but I think it makes some assumptions about human nature that can't be depended on to be universal. I'm talking about people who like to play rules lawyer and find a way to game any system they touch. I see the results of such behavior everywhere in reddit, including some of the subreddits I still like to contribute to. Such people will gladly sacrifice their reputation if it means they can promote an agenda or just see how they can manipulate the system. Reddit has a large pool of trolls and ideologues who have karma scores in the negative as the price for what they're trying to achieve. Some used to hold contests to see who could go lowest and how quickly before reddit put a cap on it.
I don't want to come off like I'm telling you how to run the site. It's your space and your vision. I have no intention of interfering with it. But there are lessons I've learned from reddit and I hope you'll bear them in mind.
Every system can be gamed, not a single system in the world is bullet proof and never will be. However a good system depends on society (community) and the people that are a part of it to diminish the effects others have on gaming that system. This is explained with the benchmark reputation score dropping until it evens out at a number that takes into account "the gaming of the system". From what you mentioned there is two things that are of concern to you. 1. People downvoting others mercilessly, without cause or reason other than to be a "troll", and 2. doing whatever is needed (trolling) to get as many downvotes as possible.
I think the first problem is handled well with the flexible reputation benchmark, and as for #2... Unlike on reddit, you cannot have a negative reputation score, so instead you will see a ratio of up votes vs down votes represented by a percentage, like 32%, I don't know about you but that's pretty boring of an accomplishment and I'm sure it would be easy enough to build in functionality that will punish those with an extremely low reputation score. But then again, how much do we want the system to be in charge of?
PS. You didn't come off as negative, you strike me as someone that sees the potential in this platform and is worried that it might fall due to it growing and being effected by other not so friendly individuals. Your questions have merit and I think need to be answered as well as the topic needs to be discussed. Such a democratic approach is complex, so we need to understand how we all play a role in this system.
There's a third I mentioned as well: not just trolls who think it's fun to be disruptive but ideologues who accept low reputation and penalties as the price for accomplishing their goals such as the Digg Patriots and the Libertarian downvote squad on reddit in 2012. That such behavior is technically against site rules doesn't stop them from risking banning, shadowbanning or other penalties.
I agree, it's a silly accomplishment. And yet there are people who like to play that way.
I have no clue. I agree that the system should be community driven as much as possible. Even when it gets gamed I think the community should decide what it wants to see and what it considers appropriate. That attitude does not make me popular with some moderators. ;) My earlier proposal is a thought on reinforcing community voting and diminish the impact of ideologues who have an axe to grind and don't care what cost they must pay in the process.
I appreciate that. I understand that I can come off as aggressive or at least passionate when I argue. I'll someti...
... Read FullWhile I believe the negative effect that low reputation score individuals have on the community should diminish the lower their reputation score gets (ie. their down votes would have no effect on rep), I don't think we should do more in the form of creating additional functionality that automatically bans these members. The reason why I think it's important that these individuals shouldn't be banned is the same reason why Ellen Pao is having a hard time on reddit, and else where.
People shouldn't be afraid to express themselves and their opinions no matter how ridiculous they may appear to a majority. As long as their form of expression follows rules set fourth to keep things flowing, we shouldn't as administrators interfere in those interactions, let alone go around banning everyone with an unpopular opinion. Having said that, anyone that breaks the ToS by trolling, abusing, doxxing and or harassing others should still expect to get the good ole boot.
It's human nature to try and be different, even if it means to harass other people in order to reach the opposite end of the scale. That type of activity needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis with full transparency so that the community can be aware of what happens.
... Read FullI think you misunderstand me. I don't think anyone should be banned unless they're demonstrably disruptive. Reddit identified a group of people whom they could demonstrate were genuinely disruptive and brought the hammer down on them. I don't disagree with that action.
But bans should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. Certainly the conditions under which someone can be banned should be clearly spelled out. I absolutely don't think anyone should be banned for espousing an unpopular opinion. Automatic bans should never be done. But I think there are ways that people who just want to be contrary can be discouraged from being disruptive.
I enthusiastically approve.
I didn't misunderstand you, and I know you aren't in favor of automatic banning. I just wanted to clarify this for anyone else reading our exchange. I'm happy we're in agreement /u/spaceghoti.
Just going to point out that I meant a literal reputation, not the reputation score haha. But I do agree with your take on it.
What if downvotes provoked a small hit on our own stats? Perhaps the more people downvoting the same thing the smaller the hit to each individual? That way downvotes come at a cost but you're vindicated if the content warrants the behavior. They'd probably want to take this away from brand new accounts, though.
The danger there is the promotion of groupthink, but like the abuse of downvotes it's hard to avoid.
[This comment was removed]
The question is however... should it be avoided? How much more control should we give the system? I for one am perfectly happy with a lesser average as long as everyone is effected by the same exact system. I imagine it like inflation effecting currency, it doesn't matter who has it, everyone that has it is affected equally.
That's the big question. How do you balance free speech and open expression with a stable, positive community? What do you do with the inevitable trolls who get their kicks out of disrupting communities and exploiting loopholes? The more users come here from reddit, digg or other social media sites the more of an issue this is going to become. However you decide to deal with it, you should at least be aware that it's coming.
Agreed, it's an important subject and believe me I don't think it's being ignored or down played.
It's funny you should bring up digg, because that is the perfect example of a team of admins that did everything wrong. They saw a problem with their system that sadly couldn't handle being gamed, as well as no active solution on how to absorb the effects of the problem. So instead of tweaking the system, and working towards allowing the community to mitigate the issue they completely overhauled it, gave themselves all the power and cut out the community all together. This ended really badly for them.
So, I think the goal here is to approach it from an angle that empowers the community by building the foundation and creating the tools that are capable in off-setting the negative effects of the negative/abusive minority.