• eric
      link
      222 years ago

      I mean, it kind of does mean something small, which is credibility. Karma wasn’t ever a flawless way to determine credibility, but it was a decent first pass, like an online ocular patdown.

        • @Buddahriffic
          link
          72 years ago

          Example: replace this entire comment with a portion of a highly upvoted comment below from this same thread, combine that with an official experience that only shows one or two top level comments and those copies can also get lots of upvotes. Reddit was rife with these kinds of bots.

        • @DarkMatter_contract
          link
          32 years ago

          In ideal situation downvote should not be used for disagreeing but topic relevant and quality. In ideal situation…

      • @Shardikprime
        link
        62 years ago

        Bro I’ve never for a second thought that gallowboob had any credibility whatsoever and the motherfucker had like, all the KARMA

        • eric
          link
          52 years ago

          You’re completely missing my point. I’m not saying you should worship the guy, but he has more credibility than a troll with negative karma or a 3 month old tshirt bot with a few hundred karma from plagiarized comments.

          • @Shardikprime
            link
            02 years ago

            Both those cases have 0 credibility from any sensible person as they are functionally equivalent

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Hi I’m necrocommenting this old comment, sorry.

          You’re conflating post karma and comment karma. Post karma is shit and almost everyone on reddit with super high post karma is awful. Comment karma however is often a decent measure of credibility. The problem is people conflate the two, or worse, inappropriately value post karma over comment karma.