I feel like a more granular voting system would be specially good here in the Lemmy/Kbin/etc. “Fediverse forums”: it would counter the fluff principle, make voting brigades more noticeable, open room for users to personalise their feeds in a transparent way, and perhaps even allow communities to get more distinct identities.
(I do have an idea of a system that I believe that would work really well here. It’s basically “reverse Slashdot” - one type of upvote, 5 types of downvote. I can go further on that if anyone wants, but keep in mind that it’s just “ideas guy” tier.)
Why not just go to a collection of votes with configurable values of +1, 0, and -1? They all have global values that default to something sane and each user can define custom values both globally and per community.
I might set “Funny” to +1 except in /WorldNews, where it’s a -1. I might appreciate controversial posts so I might set “Flamebait” to a global 0 so it doesn’t affect a post’s rating. And so on.
(Wait, that’s basically just extended Slashdot. Eh, I like Slashdot’s system.)
(Wait, that’s basically just extended Slashdot. Eh, I like Slashdot’s system.)
Yup! And so is my idea, really. The key differences between my idea and Slashdot’s implementation are as follows.
Everyone gets to cast a vote, a la Reddit. I don’t think that that Venetian Republic style “random mod powers” system does any good.
There’s only a single upvote, but multiple types of downvote. For the following reasons:
good content often scores well on multiple categories, but shitty content usually has a jarring flaw.
interface-wise, the upvote could demand a simple click, while the downvote would require two (“downvote”, then select type of downvote). That would weakly discourage downvotes (as they take “more effort”), without discouraging upvotes.
people don’t usually get pissed because they don’t know why they’re being upvoted. They do it because they don’t know why they’re being downvoted.
The downvote categories that I’m thinking about are “dislike”, “rude”, “unfunny”, “misleading/assumptive”, “non-contributive”.
Then its usage for sorting goes a lot like in your idea; you’d have the “default” scoring for the community, but users can override it for themselves with a personal one. So for example if you’re like me and don’t care too much about rudeness, you set up the weight of “rude” downvotes to 0.5 or something like this; this means that two “rude” downvotes cancel out a single upvote. And if you got a hate boner against “ackshyually”, you set up the “non-contributive” ones to -2.
No, you get to set that. The defaults are global. But you can override that (both globally and per community) only for you. If you never like jokes except in joke communities you can set “Funny” to -1 globally and to +1 in Ten Forward. But that doesn’t affect how it works for me.
This would, of course, man that posts are sorted completely differently for us. A really funny post might be extremely highly upvoted for me but in the deep negatives for you.
It would also mean that a global karma counter doesn’t exist.
I feel like a more granular voting system would be specially good here in the Lemmy/Kbin/etc. “Fediverse forums”: it would counter the fluff principle, make voting brigades more noticeable, open room for users to personalise their feeds in a transparent way, and perhaps even allow communities to get more distinct identities.
(I do have an idea of a system that I believe that would work really well here. It’s basically “reverse Slashdot” - one type of upvote, 5 types of downvote. I can go further on that if anyone wants, but keep in mind that it’s just “ideas guy” tier.)
Why not just go to a collection of votes with configurable values of +1, 0, and -1? They all have global values that default to something sane and each user can define custom values both globally and per community.
I might set “Funny” to +1 except in /WorldNews, where it’s a -1. I might appreciate controversial posts so I might set “Flamebait” to a global 0 so it doesn’t affect a post’s rating. And so on.
(Wait, that’s basically just extended Slashdot. Eh, I like Slashdot’s system.)
Yup! And so is my idea, really. The key differences between my idea and Slashdot’s implementation are as follows.
Everyone gets to cast a vote, a la Reddit. I don’t think that that Venetian Republic style “random mod powers” system does any good.
There’s only a single upvote, but multiple types of downvote. For the following reasons:
The downvote categories that I’m thinking about are “dislike”, “rude”, “unfunny”, “misleading/assumptive”, “non-contributive”.
Then its usage for sorting goes a lot like in your idea; you’d have the “default” scoring for the community, but users can override it for themselves with a personal one. So for example if you’re like me and don’t care too much about rudeness, you set up the weight of “rude” downvotes to 0.5 or something like this; this means that two “rude” downvotes cancel out a single upvote. And if you got a hate boner against “ackshyually”, you set up the “non-contributive” ones to -2.
Trying to remember what each community considers a downvote sounds exhausting
No, you get to set that. The defaults are global. But you can override that (both globally and per community) only for you. If you never like jokes except in joke communities you can set “Funny” to -1 globally and to +1 in Ten Forward. But that doesn’t affect how it works for me.
This would, of course, man that posts are sorted completely differently for us. A really funny post might be extremely highly upvoted for me but in the deep negatives for you.
It would also mean that a global karma counter doesn’t exist.
That sounds even more chaotic tbh