The thing is that any system needs to be resilient against people strategic voting (with people having different goals and opinions about how to vote and why). Given that at least a nontrivial chunk of people vote this way, if we don’t want them to, it seems like the preferred solution is to change the voting system so that it no longer incentivizes that in the first place.
I agree with this statement, but I don’t think you have as much control as you like about people’s perception of votes, and what the incentive actually is for diverse individuals.
My incentives in voting are:
encourage more posts by new and not-yet-established posters. Getting someone into the low hundreds so they’re comfortable is a priority here.
encourage BETTER posts from a given poster, rather than encouraging more posts from some and fewer than others. How to do this is idiosyncratic based on what else the poster has posted and what reactions and comments have been given in the past. Usually comments and PMs are more effective than votes.
mark truly negative-value posts (spam and incoherent, as opposed to just imperfect) to get it noticed and removed by mods.
I think people perceive different types of vote systems fairly differently. I’m actually talking about bigger changes than you’re probably thinking of.
If I wanted to incentivize voters to “vote their true beliefs without regard for the rest of social consensus” (what Wakalix seems to be describing, and which I think is orthogonal to the set of things you’re talking about – you’re pointing at what posting behavior the votes should incentivize, and I think Wakalix is talking more about voting behavior), I would:
a) hide the karma before they vote
b) use something closer to a 1-5 star rating system (not precisely that, but closer). I think this would dramatically change the relationship with voting, and would much more naturally output the the voting behavior that Wakalix describes.
The thing is that any system needs to be resilient against people strategic voting (with people having different goals and opinions about how to vote and why). Given that at least a nontrivial chunk of people vote this way, if we don’t want them to, it seems like the preferred solution is to change the voting system so that it no longer incentivizes that in the first place.
I agree with this statement, but I don’t think you have as much control as you like about people’s perception of votes, and what the incentive actually is for diverse individuals.
My incentives in voting are:
encourage more posts by new and not-yet-established posters. Getting someone into the low hundreds so they’re comfortable is a priority here.
encourage BETTER posts from a given poster, rather than encouraging more posts from some and fewer than others. How to do this is idiosyncratic based on what else the poster has posted and what reactions and comments have been given in the past. Usually comments and PMs are more effective than votes.
mark truly negative-value posts (spam and incoherent, as opposed to just imperfect) to get it noticed and removed by mods.
I think people perceive different types of vote systems fairly differently. I’m actually talking about bigger changes than you’re probably thinking of.
If I wanted to incentivize voters to “vote their true beliefs without regard for the rest of social consensus” (what Wakalix seems to be describing, and which I think is orthogonal to the set of things you’re talking about – you’re pointing at what posting behavior the votes should incentivize, and I think Wakalix is talking more about voting behavior), I would:
a) hide the karma before they vote
b) use something closer to a 1-5 star rating system (not precisely that, but closer). I think this would dramatically change the relationship with voting, and would much more naturally output the the voting behavior that Wakalix describes.