It was never that I minded Lemmy’s karma system (assuming such a thing wasn’t in the wrong hands), it’s that, if others were said to have minded, you would’ve never guessed that if you signed up today, based on how it’s visibly used. Personally I always sort comments based on how new it is, with new ones showing at the top. I do this on every website I’m on, as well as upvote everything I interact with for memory’s sake. The thing is when you have any popularity-based system is, what exactly is being represented? Sometimes I go somewhere and the most popular example of something is at the top based on no discernable values, which also sometimes suggests something was amiss. How does one please anyone/anything where the interests are inconsistent? This problem does not exist on Reddit.
Also to note is that Reddit’s karma system, which includes the added user-generated score system on their profile that a subreddit can use to vet people, has served as a good tool against people making a presence only for the purpose of an agenda, whether it be marketing or targeting. It also was more complex than simply “upvote to nod, downvote to shake your head”. Reddit has things in place to prevent weaponization. Here it’s relatively simple.
Those are all good points! Certainly some of it is growing pains, but it would make for a better entry point to have a walkthrough upon signup. That could be true of apps, as well.
It’s all a balancing act, isn’t it? Between managing reputation and the increased trust/context it brings, allowing for a broader range of opinions (and more contentious ones) versus encouraging consensus within a community, and managing user expectations. How do you keep out trolls and chan-culture without encouraging fearful bean counting and a smoothening of the many bumpy opinions into what is widely perceived as acceptable?
What works for a suddenly engorged, amorphous and non-profit driven organization like Lemmy is going to be different from what Reddit can do from a top-down perspective. I’ve always held paid actors to a higher standard than unpaid ones, so I’m willing to rely more on my own internal sorting of value. Everyone has experienced a time where they or someone else made a good point that was ignored in favor of the popular person’s more mundane one, and I think that that’s just a part of humanity that you can’t kick out without establishing some sort of external arbiter.
I don’t know the answer to it, just that a simpler system that one disagrees with is easier to navigate than one that’s more complex.
Besides sorting by age or number of replies, how else would you sort comments, and is that any better than using user generated scores?
It was never that I minded Lemmy’s karma system (assuming such a thing wasn’t in the wrong hands), it’s that, if others were said to have minded, you would’ve never guessed that if you signed up today, based on how it’s visibly used. Personally I always sort comments based on how new it is, with new ones showing at the top. I do this on every website I’m on, as well as upvote everything I interact with for memory’s sake. The thing is when you have any popularity-based system is, what exactly is being represented? Sometimes I go somewhere and the most popular example of something is at the top based on no discernable values, which also sometimes suggests something was amiss. How does one please anyone/anything where the interests are inconsistent? This problem does not exist on Reddit.
Also to note is that Reddit’s karma system, which includes the added user-generated score system on their profile that a subreddit can use to vet people, has served as a good tool against people making a presence only for the purpose of an agenda, whether it be marketing or targeting. It also was more complex than simply “upvote to nod, downvote to shake your head”. Reddit has things in place to prevent weaponization. Here it’s relatively simple.
Those are all good points! Certainly some of it is growing pains, but it would make for a better entry point to have a walkthrough upon signup. That could be true of apps, as well.
It’s all a balancing act, isn’t it? Between managing reputation and the increased trust/context it brings, allowing for a broader range of opinions (and more contentious ones) versus encouraging consensus within a community, and managing user expectations. How do you keep out trolls and chan-culture without encouraging fearful bean counting and a smoothening of the many bumpy opinions into what is widely perceived as acceptable?
What works for a suddenly engorged, amorphous and non-profit driven organization like Lemmy is going to be different from what Reddit can do from a top-down perspective. I’ve always held paid actors to a higher standard than unpaid ones, so I’m willing to rely more on my own internal sorting of value. Everyone has experienced a time where they or someone else made a good point that was ignored in favor of the popular person’s more mundane one, and I think that that’s just a part of humanity that you can’t kick out without establishing some sort of external arbiter.
I don’t know the answer to it, just that a simpler system that one disagrees with is easier to navigate than one that’s more complex.