pull down to refresh
43 sats \ 6 replies \ @jeff 3 May 2022 \ on: Daily discussion thread
Potential Idea to Kick the Tires on: An "upvote everything except this post/comment button/feature".
I don't want to censor people. But I do have the urge to signal to others that a specific piece of content is so low-signal/high-noise/unhelpful that pretty much everything else on the site is likely more valuable.
It's a worse than the average post signal.
I'm not exactly sure how the UI for this would work. But I imagine it's a button around a specific post, that somehow has context of all the surrounding/recent content, and just routes sats accordingly with some multiplier.
We we're also looking for a way for money to flow around the site more. This would do that, I think.
Probably controversial, but if SN is a protocol, there is nothing stopping me from manualy doing this right now.
Eg. there are 21 posts on the front-page right now. I want a button that says "Give everything else except this specific post, 10 sats".
Similar idea: "Upvote everything in my current view that has lower votes than this one". Similar effect, but more potent.
Or maybe I'm evil. I dunno.
The sort of simple implementation of this is to have a "i don't like this" button and you have to pay at least 100 sats for clicking that button. And the sats go to the fund that's sent to everyone daily :)
Or are you thinking about something else?
reply
the sats go to the fund that's sent to everyone daily
This doesn't align incentives.
If you want to stick to two principles:
- Voting related sats flows to the content creators/posters
- No censorship
...then there is no room for a downvote button.
The 100-sats would mean that SN is selling downvotes. That's weird, imho.
I don't really like the idea of a rich person silencing some people and rewarding passive users of the site.
I do really like the idea of a rich person rewarding the good content posters.
reply
I'm open to alternative ideas and like your idea directionally even though it doesn't really work entirely.
I don't really like the idea of a rich person silencing some people and rewarding passive users of the site.
Passive users aren't rewarded really - they had to at least contribute some value at one time. I'm going back to work on the trust algorithm soon and this will be one reason why - I think I definitely over-reward people who weren't super active recently.
reply
This is a really interesting concept. It kind of fails if there's more than 1 bad thing though.
reply
Yah, if there is multiple bad things...it does break down.
One way around that would be multiplication instead of linear addition.
You could say "Spread 1000 sats over the top-content, proportional to their exiting votes". It would kindof be a form of amplifying the existing wisdom of the crowd. Hopefully, the "other bad things", wouldn't have very much to multiply.
reply
I kind of like the idea of that, only because it makes downvoting more expensive than upvoting.
Adding sats to all other posts on the same level, that don't have more stats than the comment you really don't like, until they are 1 sat above, leaving the unliked comment at the bottom, would be the way to do it.
But then what happens if you strongly dislike multiple comments on the same level? Gets even more tricky, doesn't it? Probably for the best that this is something you just get to do manually. :)
reply