No Stupid Questions

Embrace the Lemmy system. Resistance is futile. Fake internet points are futile.

Why not keep the scores hidden and just use them to order stuff?

I asked chatgpt, just to see what would filter out...

I would like some advice on designing a content-sorting and content-filtering mechanisms for discussion forums, in order to avoid or mitigates some of the problems that current systems are prone to.

One of the social problems with discussion forums results from the concept of upvoting or downvoting content.

It can be argued that voting content up or down serves to sort content by quality, allowing high-quality content to be seen and engaged with, while discouraging low-quality submissions.

However, in practice, Goodhart's law ends up applying: when a measure becomes a goal, it stops being a useful measure.

By using popularity as a proxy metric to determine quality, and by rewarding popularity with positive attention, this ends up selecting for content with superficial emotional appeal - ragebait, memes, facile/obvious comments pandering to common sentiment, puns, etc. - and not 'useful' content that is thoughtful, incisive, analytical, or important-yet-unpalatable. Ironically, content of this nature is also low-quality in a different way.

Worse, this ends up training users to produce content of this nature at the expense of thoughtful, interesting, incisive discussion, reducing both the production of quality content, and the quality of the collaborative sorting that users perfom by way of voting.

A cumulative 'karma' score for users, being a sum total of their upvotes and downvotes across all of their submissions, while ostensibly encouraging engagement and admirable behaviour... can again end up being gamified, and lead to users making large numbers of popular but low-effort submissions in order to maximise their score.

This can also produce 'filter bubbles' or 'hive minds': subcultures or communities that reject and discourage disagreement or criticism, and end up with a positive feedback loop leading to increasing orthodoxy with little grounding in reality. In some cases, the communities involved can become radicalised or toxic as a result, as more-moderate voices are suppressed from the discussion, and increasingly-extreme views become required in order to gain attention. Of course, it's reasonable and useful to let groups based around common ideals preserve an individual identity separate from the mainstream of discussion, but perhaps a way to regulate excessive self-selection would be useful.

Doing away with any kind of quality-sorting mechanic altogether is not a very useful alternative; a forum where spam, antisocial, or irrelevant submissions are given equal weight and visibility as interesting or thought-provoking posts tends to discourage users from participating or even reading.

As a further complication, users do not generally follow instructions or policy set out for voting on posts, and will tend to use them to indicate approval/agreement regardless.

Human moderation is an important part of any discussion forum and essential to the guidance ans shaping of any community, but the workload does not scale well; it should be considered a limited and intensive resource.

It would seem there are a few challenges to overcome:

1: Better-define the concept of 'quality' for discussion-forum posts beyond immediate, superficial emotional appeal - what is it that makes discussions feel satisfying, and drives deeper engagement? 2: Find a way to programatically ascribe a metric based on this concept, via the engagement of other users, in any form including upvotes, downvotes, tagging, commenting - and statistical or derived data such as the number, depth and overall score of replies to the post, and perhaps even analysis of the text of replies. 3: Ensure that any such system is difficult for individual users to exploit or game; for instance a naive reply-count metric could be trivially exploited by a user posting a large number of replies to a single comment.
4: Limit the effect of self-selection feedback loops, to prevent radicalisation while still allowing common ideals and identity to flourish in their own spaces.

One idea I've had would be to sort all content by 'controversialness' - that is to say, posts with a high number of total votes, but a low-magnitude score once downvotes are subtracted from upvotes. I believe this would tend to deprioritize low-effort posts such as ragebait or pandering to common sentiment, along with junk, spam and boring or irrelevant content, and thus bring 'interesting' content to the top. I believe it would be difficult to game for attention, or for other users to have undue effect on its visibility. However, I'm not sure whether controversialness would be a good metric to drive engagement, or what large-scale effects sorting on this metric might have on a community.

Can you offer any advice or commentary on the situation, or identify any important flaws in my analysis? Can you suggest any alternatives that might work better?

===================================================================================== ChatGPT You've outlined several important challenges and considerations when it comes to designing content-sorting and filtering mechanisms for discussion forums. The issues you've raised are indeed prevalent in many online communities, and finding effective solutions can be complex. I'll provide some advice and commentary on your analysis, as well as suggest alternative approaches that might address the problems you've highlighted.

Better defining quality: You're right in emphasizing the need to define quality beyond superficial emotional appeal. One way to approach this is by incorporating multiple dimensions of quality, such as insightful analysis, thought-provoking content, well-reasoned arguments, and valuable information. Encouraging constructive and meaningful discussions should be a primary goal.

Ascribing metrics based on user engagement: Rather than relying solely on upvotes and downvotes, consider implementing a more comprehensive metric that takes into account various aspects of user engagement. This could include factors such as the number of replies, the depth of discussion, the length of time spent reading the post, and even sentiment analysis of the comments. By incorporating a broader set of metrics, you can obtain a more nuanced understanding of user engagement and use it to evaluate content quality.

Avoiding gaming and exploitation: To mitigate the risk of individuals exploiting the system, it's crucial to design mechanisms that discourage or penalize excessive or low-quality contributions. For example, you could implement rate-limiting measures that prevent users from making an excessive number of submissions within a certain time frame. Additionally, considering the quality of the engagement (e.g., the relevance, thoughtfulness, and contribution to the discussion) rather than just the quantity (e.g., sheer number of replies) can help minimize gaming attempts.

Addressing self-selection feedback loops: To prevent echo chambers and radicalization, it's important to strike a balance between allowing communities with common ideals to flourish and promoting diverse perspectives. You could introduce mechanisms that encourage exposure to alternative viewpoints, such as algorithms that prioritize showing posts to users with different preferences or even implementing mandatory or randomized exposure to different topics or communities. Additionally, fostering a culture of respectful and open-minded discussion can help create an environment where diverse opinions are valued.

Regarding your idea of sorting content by controversialness, it could be an interesting approach to promoting engaging discussions. However, it's important to carefully consider the potential effects of such sorting on the community. Controversial topics and discussions can be divisive, and if not managed well, they may lead to increased conflict and hostility. Implementing safeguards, such as active moderation and community guidelines, would be essential in maintaining a healthy and constructive environment.

In conclusion, tackling the challenges of content sorting and filtering in discussion forums requires a multifaceted approach. By defining quality beyond superficial appeal, incorporating comprehensive engagement metrics, preventing gaming and exploitation, and addressing self-selection feedback loops, you can design a system that promotes meaningful discussions while minimizing the negative effects associated with current mechanisms. It's crucial to iterate and refine these systems based on user feedback and community dynamics to ensure the best possible experience for forum participants.

Here's a crazy idea. What if down voting a comment/post resulted in a weighted random float between 0-1 while upvoting resulted in a weighted random float between 1-2? If you virulently hate a comment or post, ignoring it is the surest way to bury in completely. Posts and comments that Garner attention become the most visible, but gaming the system for visibility could become difficult if the weighting algorithm was tuned appropriately.

Karma should have a half-life, so it's not a forever thing. Have each karma point lose half of its value every three days. Makes it more transitory.

Advogato reputations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advogato#Trust_metric

Added: also, Slashdot.org karma worked sort of like reddit karma except 1) you couldn't see anyone's karma except your own, and 2) it only had 5 or so levels, topping out at "excellent". It took a few dozen good posts to reach excellent, and there was no point to whoring after you reached that level. Posts were ranked by upvotes/downvotes and went from -2 to +5. Anonymous posts started out at 0, posts from registered users with non-negative karma started at 1, and posts from registered users with good or higher karma started at 2. There were some more complications including voting "insightful", "funny", etc. and there was "meta moderation" where you could judge the accuracy of other people's votes. Usefully, you could select "filter out all posts rated below N" where you could choose N. Looking at just the 5-rated posts gave you a quick overview of the worthwhile thoughts on that topic. There were often 1000+ comments in a thread, so no way to read them all, but reading the few dozen top ones was generally enlightening.

Oh yes I remember, you could only vote on posts if you were a moderator (in their sense of the term) at that moment. Moderators were picked at random on a daily basis from the population of users with positive karma, or something similar. You got five "mod points" which you could spend on voting on posts, i.e. you could only rate 5 posts during your day as a mod, rather than all the posts you saw. You tended to get mod points once a month or so. It has been a long time since I spent any time there, so my memory is a bit hazy. It went down the tubes for a while, though recently it has looked better.

What if we had a community standing metric that flips only between "good" and "bad."

You get "bad standing" if the majority of your contributions in the last 6 months have a majority of downvotes than upvotes, but it resets after 6 months.

Everyone defaults to "good standing".

This serves the purpose of a metric to filter out trolls or bad-faith actors, whilst making "karma farming" pointless.

I think it is fine now. I don't really want karma totals or a wave of different colored reactions. Upvotes or downvote. I can't even do downvote and haven't missed it.

How about expanding the votes into multiple kinds of karma. Make it possible to place several votes: "on topic/off topic", "funny/boring", "shit post", "solution to the question", "agree/disagree", "political", "Interesting", "Spam", "Original Content", etc.

Communities could create whatever rating is suitable for their forum.

Sort of like tags, but votable.

It would basically reward everyone for what they do (being a level 7 funny shitposter is something) but at the same time making it possible for others to filter out anything they don't care about. So instead of clicking downvote because of disagreement or upvote because it's funny, there would be an outlet for that in its own vote.

I feel that would make it easier to find quality content whether you're looking for serious debate or the hottest memes.

We'd need better comment filtering on individual communities, and it could/would be abused, but overall it would be facilitate the possibility of having different kinds of conversations on the same topic.

Sometimes I want to read funny stuff in serious topics and sometimes there is serious stuff in funny threads, and sometimes people write clever stuff that I disagree with and so on. One vote is just not enough.

Any shortcut method of mimicking reputation can be and thus will be abused, so they're all toxic.

The only sure way to do it is the good old-fashioned way - by name recognition - actual, earned "reputation."

The way it used to work on all forums and still does on some smaller ones is that people just read posts and write their own posts and over time they come to recognize each other's names and associate them with some impression of each individual's value as a poster.

And yes - that's not very effective in gigantic forums, and it's not accessible to newcomers. You need a relatively small group of posters and new people have to pay attention in order to figure out who are the better or worse posters. That's just the way it is, and is one of the problems with gigantic forums.

As an also recently-former user, I don't feel like Reddit gets to own the upvote/downvote function, and I still like it more than some like FB/Twitter/YT Thumbs Up. I think it would be cool for some independent communities to remove the function for more team-oriented conversations, but on the larger forums like .world is turning out to be it should remain as is.