Activity Stream

Maybe this can be accomplished by having a quality filter on the recent feed, that can switched on or off.

This way we don't tamper with the order of the recent feed: people expect it to be ordered strictly by how recent a post is.  But if they voluntarily switch on a quality filter, they will expect downvoted posts to disappear.

There is a danger with all this though: abusive downvotes take time to be balanced out by the true sentiment of the crowd, which usually brings them back up to above 90% quality.  If an abusive downvote gets in early, it could severely damage the visibility of the post.  I'm not sure that risk can be removed, so I'm ambivalent about this.  Do you see a solution?

Don't forget that in your profile, under personal settings, you can exclude low quality content.  That's already in there.

But to do this, what would "downvoted" mean to you? 1 downvote? 3? 5?  Would upvotes cancel that?

     

Just wondering if the quality filter might be more useful if applicable on a per-feed basis, with the switch right there at the top of the feed tab. 

Right now, I forget it even exists because it is global and tucked away - I can't tell you what I have it set to right now, from memory, for instance.

I would really like to see all  the new posts unfiltered.  Unfortunately there are new members who are posting a lot yesterday and today - and the vast majority of it is copy paste from places like yahoo news and online crytpo magazines. They're using the canonical linking in the post editor to link back to the original source, but it's not their content. 

@David Dreezer I think 3 would be good. It doesn't mean the post disappears, just loses priority in the feed so good posts don't have to compete with junk.

If upvotes are legit, it should cancel it, but then there's another question. I think to be safe it should, though.

I'll check the filters you mention @Malkazoid I didn't notice them - thanks!

I don't  know what to do about abusive downvotes - hopefully the ones who are being wrongfully dinged notice and come here to report it. I think that moving downvoted (not disagreed with posts, just poor quality and rule breaking ones) down the feed is fair to members who are trying to get their quality posts visible. 

Colleen Ryer posted:

I'll check the filters you mention @Malkazoid I didn't notice them - thanks!

Just to be clear - what I am proposing does not exist yet.  There is a global filter somewhere in your profile settings I think, where you can filter out low quality.

I just think this would be more useful if it were on a per feed basis, and a switch right there on the feed.  Maybe this will be considered.

I don't  know what to do about abusive downvotes - hopefully the ones who are being wrongfully dinged notice and come here to report it. I think that moving downvoted (not disagreed with posts, just poor quality and rule breaking ones) down the feed is fair to members who are trying to get their quality posts visible. 

Reporting the wrongful dinging (fun expression) can't amount to much: the Team can't do anything about it apparently.  The system is live and immutable, from the responses I've gathered so far.  For instance Teddy's harsh 4 month ding - the response is that the Team actually has no means to change it.  I think this means they refuse to take these sorts of actions, so as to not engage a slippery slope towards centralised power.  

One way of compensating for the risk of abusive downvotes making content disappear from this feed, would be for there to be a special feed available to niche-owners and moderators, populated with all the content that is getting downvoted on their niches.  This would be an excellent place for them to look when deciding to feature content on the niche's human-curated tab... if a great post that has been abusively downvoted appears, they could feature it for an hour or so, to compensate.

I hear what you're saying @Malkazoid I just think if someone is going to maliciously down vote, they'll do it whether there's a systemt to trend posts down or not. Actually, if the posts stay visible, they might get more downvotes without it. 

I'll have to look up what's been said about downvote penalties - too much to recall there. 

Agree a separate feed for whoever is moderating would likely make life a lot more pleasant!

Colleen Ryer posted:

I hear what you're saying @Malkazoid I just think if someone is going to maliciously down vote, they'll do it whether there's a systemt to trend posts down or not. Actually, if the posts stay visible, they might get more downvotes without it.

 

I agree - and the idea isn't for this measure to dissuade abusive downvotes, rather for it to be designed in such a way as to control the extent of damage that downvote does to the visibility of a good post.

 

 

I'll have to look up what's been said about downvote penalties - too much to recall there. 

So much to learn and retain!  

Agree a separate feed for whoever is moderating would likely make life a lot more pleasant!

Great!

Well, right now the posts that are downvoted - or should be but no one has opened them - are doing a good job staying visible. I've lost count of how many today. I not going to bother to post in the storm. Some kind of solution is needed, maybe not the one I've proposed, but something.

Colleen Ryer posted:

Well, right now the posts that are downvoted - or should be but no one has opened them - are doing a good job staying visible. I've lost count of how many today. I not going to bother to post in the storm. Some kind of solution is needed, maybe not the one I've proposed, but something.

True!  Just going by what you seemed to want for this new feed: in other words, for downvoted posts to fall off rapidly...

I think this is a great solution!  They just have to be a little careful in how they implement it...

Malkazoid posted:
Colleen Ryer posted:

Well, right now the posts that are downvoted - or should be but no one has opened them - are doing a good job staying visible. I've lost count of how many today. I not going to bother to post in the storm. Some kind of solution is needed, maybe not the one I've proposed, but something.

True!  Just going by what you seemed to want for this new feed: in other words, for downvoted posts to fall off rapidly...

I think this is a great solution!  They just have to be a little careful in how they implement it...

Thanks @malkazoid  If a post has been downvoted and it doesn't deserve it the readers usually start upvoting - and often, the poster starts sayin', too. The posters that do deserve it seem very quiet, tho. If it's implemented with a 3 vote grace, I think it should be OK.

Colleen Ryer posted:
Thanks @malkazoid  If a post has been downvoted and it doesn't deserve it the readers usually start upvoting - and often, the poster starts sayin', too. The posters that do deserve it seem very quiet, tho. If it's implemented with a 3 vote grace, I think it should be OK.
 

Yes - that should really help!

Sol_Cycler posted:

@MALKAZOID, I don't really see any evidence that currently abusing dv's are happening enough to even be mentioned.

Hehe, well I do, otherwise I wouldn't mention it.

Quite a few people have suffered from it, myself included.  The more involved in community governance you are, the more you will notice it.  Appeal a few niches that have problems...  Or become a moderator: I'm sure they'll have a tough time avoiding disgruntled revenge votes...

Anyway, we should be thinking in a way that scales.  On any given day, x amount of abusive downvotes will happen, and that number will grow with the site.  That will lose us X number of narrators per year, and disgruntle even more.  We should, as a matter of course, do what we can to minimise any such problem.  

The Recent feed should remain in chronological order, but low quality content should not be making it into the Featured feed, but is. That kind of defeats the point of curating, other than they don't receive rewards. Of course, I'm not quite sure how low the quality needs to be to receive zero rewards.

I don't think @Colleen Ryer is talking about the Featured feed, but about how the Recent feed might behave better.

I completely agree with you that low quality posts shouldn't make it into the Featured feed!

Also, one author hasn't produced a quality article in over a month, but he's not yet conduct negative. How's that possible. Obviously negative reputation isn't in the code, because if you take away the 30 pts for verification, they are able to maintain a +6 rep...

As for zero votes? Then those posts should never make it onto any other than the recent.

Agreed.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×