laarcnew | comments | discord | tags | ask | show | place | submitlogin

Define 'abuse'.

Does multivote on a poll ever make sense?




Abuse is pretty much anything that annoys active members of the community.

(I was going to say "longstanding members," but that's not a good distinction. It's important to let people show up and become involved in the community right away.)

In this case, abuse might look something like this: Someone shows up, realizes they can upvote infinitely, submits their own site, then upvotes it 50 times.

But even that isn't necessarily abuse. All new submissions already go to the front page. The score is just a reflection of how interesting the community thinks a story is. So if you think a story is extremely interesting, maybe it warrants a lot of upvotes.

This model might break for controversial stories. People tend to upvote those out of a sense of duty rather than curiosity. But those can be dealt with on a case by case basis.

-----

2 points by akkartik 488 days ago

To elaborate on what I was hinting at: the moment you introduce a word like 'abuse', you need concrete policies for detecting it and concrete penalties. Otherwise you risk turning into a site that has some amount of arbitrariness and turns away some people. (Sound familiar? ^_^)

Abuse management is a hard problem. The far easier alternative is to design your features up front to be impossible to abuse, or failing that to permit extremely clear definitions for 'abuse'. So the fact that multivote has you worrying about abuse is likely the single largest drawback against it.

One idea: HN doesn't penalize sockpuppet votes, but tries to detect and discount them. In similar vein, allow people to upvote as many times as they want, but discount successive upvotes so that the fifth upvote is say an order of magnitude less powerful than the second upvote.

-----

2 points by shawn 488 days ago

https://www.laarc.io/votes might be one way to watch for problems. It's also a nice way to keep a pulse on the site.

To elaborate on what I was hinting at: the moment you introduce a word like 'abuse', you need concrete policies for detecting it and concrete penalties. Otherwise you risk turning into a site that has some amount of arbitrariness and turns away some people. (Sound familiar? ^_^)

True, but people seem to like curation. Especially when they themselves get to do the curating.

One interesting thing about laarc is that there hasn't been any abusive behavior whatsoever. This will certainly change, but when? The community has been so amazing that it might be ok just to trust people to be good. If people show up and start spamming, it'd be pretty obvious.

You're right that there should be clear procedures for handling situations like that. If a restriction is placed on a user's account, I'll make sure they know why it happened and how to resolve it. But it's in a spirit of cooperation, not judgement.

-----




Welcome | Guidelines | Bookmarklet | Feature Requests | Source | Contact | Twitter | Lists

RSS (stories) | RSS (comments)

Search: