I would think that everyone with 2000 karma has been downvoted by at least 7 users. That’s a lot of posts and comments.
It seems like maybe this algorithm deserves a little rethinking. Maybe the past month is all you need to change, but I don’t know what the rest of the algorithm is. −5 is a very low bar for limiting a high net karma user, since that can be produced by one angry big downvotes from another high karma user.
It’s net karma of your last 20 comments or posts. So in order for one person to rate limit you, you would have needed to write 20 comments in a row that got basically no votes from anyone but you, at which point, I probably endorse rate-limiting you (though the zero vote case is a bit tricky, and indeed where I think a lot of the false-positives and false-negatives of the system come from).
I do think the system tends to fire the most false-positives when people are engaging in really in-depth comment trees and so write a lot of comments that get no engagement, which then makes things more sensitive to marginal downvotes. I do think “number of downvoters in the last month” or maybe “number of downvoters on your last 20 comments or posts” would help a bunch with that.
I would love to see it switch from being based on votes on your most recent n comments to being votes in a time window. If someone has posted one comment a month for 20 months and none of them got votes except for one strong downvote six months ago, that doesn’t seem like it should get rate limited.
Yeah, it’s not crazy, but I currently am against it. I think if a user only comments occasionally, but always comments in a way that gets downvoted, then I think it’s good for them to maintain a low rate-limit. I don’t see how calendar time passing gives me evidence that someone’s comments will be better and that I now want more of them on the site again.
That’s a nice to have, and I do think it reduces the correlation across time and so is a case for having the rate-limit decay with just time, but mostly the point of the rate-limit is to increase the average comment quality on the site without banning a bunch of people (which comes with much more chilling effects where their perspectives are not at all represented on the site, and while still allowing them to complain about the moderation and make the costs to them known)
...okay, but there have in fact been quite a number of people who make high quality comments normally, who have complained and made the costs to them known, expressed that time based decay would have been better… and you haven’t changed it.
in particular, someone who’s name escapes me right now who was new to the site and wrote carefully reasoned comments every time, but who was saying things highly critical of most things she commented on—and who was quite careful to not use emotive language—was getting downvoted consistently, got rate limited, and nearly immediately left the site.
We definitely need to separate “some types of comments get incorrectly downvoted” from “throttling is harmful in some cases”. It drives me nuts that some kinds of criticism get downvoted, even when they’re well-made and relevant. But I don’t see any solution that doesn’t have very large reduction in the overall information content of voting.
There’s no software solution but when you actually see such criticism you can vote it up strongly.
If we have enough experienced people in this community who have the karma to cast strong votes and willingness to do it, the problem is solvable.
Not sure who you are referring to, but we made some tweaks to various parts of the system of the last few months, so decent chance it wouldn’t happen again.
I currently am reasonably happy when I review who gets rate limited when, though it’s definitely not easy to see the full effects of it. I think a time decay would make it a lot worse.
This is placing a high bar on the tone of comments. But the culture of collegiality is valuable in a subtle and powerful way, so I’d probably endorse it.
I would think that everyone with 2000 karma has been downvoted by at least 7 users. That’s a lot of posts and comments.
It seems like maybe this algorithm deserves a little rethinking. Maybe the past month is all you need to change, but I don’t know what the rest of the algorithm is. −5 is a very low bar for limiting a high net karma user, since that can be produced by one angry big downvotes from another high karma user.
It’s net karma of your last 20 comments or posts. So in order for one person to rate limit you, you would have needed to write 20 comments in a row that got basically no votes from anyone but you, at which point, I probably endorse rate-limiting you (though the zero vote case is a bit tricky, and indeed where I think a lot of the false-positives and false-negatives of the system come from).
I do think the system tends to fire the most false-positives when people are engaging in really in-depth comment trees and so write a lot of comments that get no engagement, which then makes things more sensitive to marginal downvotes. I do think “number of downvoters in the last month” or maybe “number of downvoters on your last 20 comments or posts” would help a bunch with that.
I would love to see it switch from being based on votes on your most recent n comments to being votes in a time window. If someone has posted one comment a month for 20 months and none of them got votes except for one strong downvote six months ago, that doesn’t seem like it should get rate limited.
Yeah, it’s not crazy, but I currently am against it. I think if a user only comments occasionally, but always comments in a way that gets downvoted, then I think it’s good for them to maintain a low rate-limit. I don’t see how calendar time passing gives me evidence that someone’s comments will be better and that I now want more of them on the site again.
the purpose of the system is to give people a breather if they get upset, yeah? that emotional activation fades with time.
That’s a nice to have, and I do think it reduces the correlation across time and so is a case for having the rate-limit decay with just time, but mostly the point of the rate-limit is to increase the average comment quality on the site without banning a bunch of people (which comes with much more chilling effects where their perspectives are not at all represented on the site, and while still allowing them to complain about the moderation and make the costs to them known)
...okay, but there have in fact been quite a number of people who make high quality comments normally, who have complained and made the costs to them known, expressed that time based decay would have been better… and you haven’t changed it.
in particular, someone who’s name escapes me right now who was new to the site and wrote carefully reasoned comments every time, but who was saying things highly critical of most things she commented on—and who was quite careful to not use emotive language—was getting downvoted consistently, got rate limited, and nearly immediately left the site.
We definitely need to separate “some types of comments get incorrectly downvoted” from “throttling is harmful in some cases”. It drives me nuts that some kinds of criticism get downvoted, even when they’re well-made and relevant. But I don’t see any solution that doesn’t have very large reduction in the overall information content of voting.
There’s no software solution but when you actually see such criticism you can vote it up strongly. If we have enough experienced people in this community who have the karma to cast strong votes and willingness to do it, the problem is solvable.
Not sure who you are referring to, but we made some tweaks to various parts of the system of the last few months, so decent chance it wouldn’t happen again.
I currently am reasonably happy when I review who gets rate limited when, though it’s definitely not easy to see the full effects of it. I think a time decay would make it a lot worse.
That makes more sense, thanks.
This is placing a high bar on the tone of comments. But the culture of collegiality is valuable in a subtle and powerful way, so I’d probably endorse it.