Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 10:44:25 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Can we "Like" a post?  (Read 22166 times)
taesup
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 99


View Profile
May 26, 2014, 12:52:50 PM
 #21

Cryptopher and ranlo
Voting on a topic does not effect it's position on the board the same goes for posts. They are still laid out in the same time related fashion as they are now. The only effect a large amount of negative downvotes is to have that topic or post "closed" by default. The topic or post will never disappear but it may be grayed out or have some other visual indicator that yells out that this topic or post has been voted as either unpopular or does not contribute to the parent object.

Otsu
Care to elaborate?
If the shill accounts you mean newly generated accounts, those cannot vote by default. Another user would have to upvote enough of their content to the point where they can vote. And at only one vote per piece of content. That's a lot of surface area to cover without getting any downvotes to really pull it off. Again, the only real downside that someone else has mentioned is if someone were to buy already upvoted accounts. They would still need to generate more good content (thus increasing their surface area for downvotes) before those account can get more upvote and more "weight." I have not figured out the issue with bought account but unless they contribute content, they, at the very least, cannot raise the "weight" they carry without risking spam content and downvote momentum.

dserrano5
Thanks for the link. I'll look into it.

monbux
That's the plan!

jbrnt
That's another aspect I'm trying to tackle right now, transferring over the status of the old forum to the new one. There obviously needs to be some kind of a reputation translation but on the other hand... it may be easier to start from scratch? *flame suit on*
I also agree about the measure of a member's "judgement" needing careful implementation. Which is why I'm trying to keep the design process for this pretty public. I haven't written any code for it yet though. Just throwing my ideas out there and having you all poke holes in it that I probably would not have seen otherwise.

I am a Epochtalk (New Forum Software) Developer.
1513507465
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513507465

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513507465
Reply with quote  #2

1513507465
Report to moderator
1513507465
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513507465

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513507465
Reply with quote  #2

1513507465
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513507465
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513507465

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513507465
Reply with quote  #2

1513507465
Report to moderator
jambola2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


Enjin Coin - Smart Cryptocurrency for Gaming.


View Profile
May 26, 2014, 01:56:58 PM
 #22

More than upvoting , I think downvoting would be the better part.

Downvoting would make an awesome addition into the report system.
If a post receives x downvotes , while the user has already been flagged or has under y activity , they would be automatically reported , for admins/mods/staff to check.

jambola2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


Enjin Coin - Smart Cryptocurrency for Gaming.


View Profile
May 26, 2014, 02:01:34 PM
 #23


If the shill accounts you mean newly generated accounts, those cannot vote by default. Another user would have to upvote enough of their content to the point where they can vote. And at only one vote per piece of content. That's a lot of surface area to cover without getting any downvotes to really pull it off. Again, the only real downside that someone else has mentioned is if someone were to buy already upvoted accounts. They would still need to generate more good content (thus increasing their surface area for downvotes) before those account can get more upvote and more "weight." I have not figured out the issue with bought account but unless they contribute content, they, at the very least, cannot raise the "weight" they carry without risking spam content and downvote momentum.


Assume I was to buy 10 accounts with low upvoting power , maybe just a couple.
I could then make a single post that seems kinda constructive on one of the accounts and upvote it on all of the other accounts. While this would be a little suspicious , it would not be enough to be flagged in any way.
That account would gain a lot of upvoting power.


The only way that will not happen is if people give upvotes only for good reasons, just like trust.

It seems like a lose-lose scenario from there , because if it is used as rarely as trust , it will not help much on the forums and if it is used any more commonly , it may create dangers.

ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 07:52:26 PM
 #24

Otsu
Care to elaborate?
If the shill accounts you mean newly generated accounts, those cannot vote by default. Another user would have to upvote enough of their content to the point where they can vote. And at only one vote per piece of content. That's a lot of surface area to cover without getting any downvotes to really pull it off. Again, the only real downside that someone else has mentioned is if someone were to buy already upvoted accounts. They would still need to generate more good content (thus increasing their surface area for downvotes) before those account can get more upvote and more "weight." I have not figured out the issue with bought account but unless they contribute content, they, at the very least, cannot raise the "weight" they carry without risking spam content and downvote momentum.

You can buy accounts. You can create 500 accounts right now and make a few posts a day and get them all to Hero Member status over time. On the road up, you're getting more and more powerful, to the point where you can dominate everyone else's posts simply by creating a bot that logs in to each account one by one and targets a specified post and/or thread. You can automate the entire process. You have an enemy? Enter the URL of that post/thread and set your bot army up to downvote them 500 times. Boom, now they are effectively neutralized.

Again, this is a horrible implementation and it is ridiculously EASY to exploit. It's not even something that requires a small amount of thought.


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




















Earn Devcoins by Writing
Cryptopher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


Keep it dense, yeah?


View Profile WWW
May 26, 2014, 09:22:42 PM
 #25

Otsu
Care to elaborate?
If the shill accounts you mean newly generated accounts, those cannot vote by default. Another user would have to upvote enough of their content to the point where they can vote. And at only one vote per piece of content. That's a lot of surface area to cover without getting any downvotes to really pull it off. Again, the only real downside that someone else has mentioned is if someone were to buy already upvoted accounts. They would still need to generate more good content (thus increasing their surface area for downvotes) before those account can get more upvote and more "weight." I have not figured out the issue with bought account but unless they contribute content, they, at the very least, cannot raise the "weight" they carry without risking spam content and downvote momentum.

You can buy accounts. You can create 500 accounts right now and make a few posts a day and get them all to Hero Member status over time. On the road up, you're getting more and more powerful, to the point where you can dominate everyone else's posts simply by creating a bot that logs in to each account one by one and targets a specified post and/or thread. You can automate the entire process. You have an enemy? Enter the URL of that post/thread and set your bot army up to downvote them 500 times. Boom, now they are effectively neutralized.

Again, this is a horrible implementation and it is ridiculously EASY to exploit. It's not even something that requires a small amount of thought.

While your example is valid it isn't very feasible. The time that it would take to get even just 10 accounts to Hero status is ridiculous. It takes about 18 months to reach Hero Member status, then there's all the posting, and then comes the bot abuse that would certainly be traced and have those accounts nuked making it all a massive waste of time.

Going back to the original suggestion outlined within the OP, I think that having an +1/upvote/like option would be fine. There needn't be any requirement for a -1/downvote/dislike complement, and there needn't be a requirement to shift the topic/post either.

ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 09:25:50 PM
 #26

Otsu
Care to elaborate?
If the shill accounts you mean newly generated accounts, those cannot vote by default. Another user would have to upvote enough of their content to the point where they can vote. And at only one vote per piece of content. That's a lot of surface area to cover without getting any downvotes to really pull it off. Again, the only real downside that someone else has mentioned is if someone were to buy already upvoted accounts. They would still need to generate more good content (thus increasing their surface area for downvotes) before those account can get more upvote and more "weight." I have not figured out the issue with bought account but unless they contribute content, they, at the very least, cannot raise the "weight" they carry without risking spam content and downvote momentum.

You can buy accounts. You can create 500 accounts right now and make a few posts a day and get them all to Hero Member status over time. On the road up, you're getting more and more powerful, to the point where you can dominate everyone else's posts simply by creating a bot that logs in to each account one by one and targets a specified post and/or thread. You can automate the entire process. You have an enemy? Enter the URL of that post/thread and set your bot army up to downvote them 500 times. Boom, now they are effectively neutralized.

Again, this is a horrible implementation and it is ridiculously EASY to exploit. It's not even something that requires a small amount of thought.

While your example is valid it isn't very feasible. The time that it would take to get even just 10 accounts to Hero status is ridiculous. It takes about 18 months to reach Hero Member status, then there's all the posting, and then comes the bot abuse that would certainly be traced and have those accounts nuked making it all a massive waste of time.

Going back to the original suggestion outlined within the OP, I think that having an +1/upvote/like option would be fine. There needn't be any requirement for a -1/downvote/dislike complement, and there needn't be a requirement to shift the topic/post either.


I seriously hope you're joking. There are already many bots on the forums that are Member and up rankings. The absurdity of thinking people wouldn't bot when they actually get a benefit from it is astounding. If people bot when they gain nothing, why would they NOT when they are rewarded?

On top of this, it's not just Hero you care about. Like I said, on the way up you become more powerful. The bots slowly gain in Activity and their weight keeps increasing.


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




















Earn Devcoins by Writing
jbrnt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 09:26:01 PM
 #27

That's another aspect I'm trying to tackle right now, transferring over the status of the old forum to the new one. There obviously needs to be some kind of a reputation translation.

Let's start by listing what parameters we have on a member. We have posts, registered days, logged in time, but have nothing on quality. We also have the reported accuracy and trust, but they don't quite work. The proposed "like" system will give us a "popularity" rating but may not be a "quality" rating.

We do have to start from scratch Grin

Rating quality cannot be performed by every registered member, because it will be exploited. How about current senior member or hero members? The current member system is based on activity which is simply built upon days and posts, not reliable. So, giving a "quality" tag to a post should be done by qualified members in a controlled manner, otherwise rating will have no meaning or value.

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a replenishable fixed number of Quality Points (QP) within a period to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 09:31:09 PM
 #28

That's another aspect I'm trying to tackle right now, transferring over the status of the old forum to the new one. There obviously needs to be some kind of a reputation translation.

Let's start by listing what parameters we have on a member. We have posts, registered days, logged in time, but have nothing on quality. We also have the reported accuracy and trust, but they don't quite work. The proposed "like" system will give us a "popularity" rating but may not be a "quality" rating.

We do have to start from scratch Grin

Rating quality cannot be performed by every registered member, because it will be exploited. How about current senior member or hero members? The current member system is based on activity which is simply built upon days and posts, not reliable. So, giving a "quality" tag to a post should be done by qualified members in a controlled manner, otherwise rating will have no meaning or value.

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a fixed number of Quality Points (QP) in a fixed period, to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.



Having set people to determine what is "quality" (which is subjective by nature) leads to its own problems. People will accept payments in return for boosting the quality of people. "0.001 BTC per vote!" Not to mention this creates a centralized system for determining quality, which further creates its own set of problems.


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




















Earn Devcoins by Writing
Cryptopher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


Keep it dense, yeah?


View Profile WWW
May 26, 2014, 09:37:34 PM
 #29

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a replenishable fixed number of Quality Points (QP) within a period to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

This seems like a lot of effort, and this Qualified Member role you propose sounds like such a responsibility. It is far too specialised for what the original proposal was.

The whole idea of this is to get some collaborative feedback, and by limiting it to a set of users makes it nothing more than a seal of approval from one of those users. It's too sparse.

By making use of a simple like system, one that gives no advantage to the topic/post other than a visual indicator to readers means that shilling attacks are virtually useless.

I think that Vod's suggestion needs no elaboration, it is what it is.

ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 09:42:56 PM
 #30

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a replenishable fixed number of Quality Points (QP) within a period to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

This seems like a lot of effort, and this Qualified Member role you propose sounds like such a responsibility. It is far too specialised for what the original proposal was.

The whole idea of this is to get some collaborative feedback, and by limiting it to a set of users makes it nothing more than a seal of approval from one of those users. It's too sparse.

By making use of a simple like system, one that gives no advantage to the topic/post other than a visual indicator to readers means that shilling attacks are virtually useless.

I think that Vod's suggestion needs no elaboration, it is what it is.

If there's no benefit other than basically highlighting posts by reputable people, why not just base it solely on the reputation system? Would that not accomplish the same thing? I disagree with that system as well, but I figure there's no reason for voting when reputation can handle it already.


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




















Earn Devcoins by Writing
Cryptopher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470


Keep it dense, yeah?


View Profile WWW
May 26, 2014, 09:48:16 PM
 #31

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a replenishable fixed number of Quality Points (QP) within a period to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

This seems like a lot of effort, and this Qualified Member role you propose sounds like such a responsibility. It is far too specialised for what the original proposal was.

The whole idea of this is to get some collaborative feedback, and by limiting it to a set of users makes it nothing more than a seal of approval from one of those users. It's too sparse.

By making use of a simple like system, one that gives no advantage to the topic/post other than a visual indicator to readers means that shilling attacks are virtually useless.

I think that Vod's suggestion needs no elaboration, it is what it is.

If there's no benefit other than basically highlighting posts by reputable people, why not just base it solely on the reputation system? Would that not accomplish the same thing? I disagree with that system as well, but I figure there's no reason for voting when reputation can handle it already.

Vod's suggestion only mentions seniority to prevent Brand New, Newbie, and Junior Members (for example) from skewing the like feedback, as they could be created as shill accounts. But the point of doing so would be very little.

If there is only the ability to like then you can't tarnish the quality of a topic or reply, only agree with it if that's what you want.

Implementing such a change in its simplest form is wise, plus restricting it to more senior members to trial it is useful. Wouldn't bother wasting time on making some complex system that has the potential for abuse.

onemorebtc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


View Profile
May 26, 2014, 09:52:40 PM
 #32

maybe this can be solved by using like and dislike buttons?
quality could be measured by how many clicked one of them. if a post get my attention and got me thinking if i am the same opinion or not i'd consider it a good post

transfer 3 onemorebtc.k1024.de 1
ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 09:59:11 PM
 #33

Qualified Members (QM) can be nominated, elected, or auto-qualify by fulfilling a set of conditions. I am in favour of mods nominating seed QMs, about 20 in beginning and slowly working up to 50 or 100 later. These QMs will have a replenishable fixed number of Quality Points (QP) within a period to tag quality posts. When normal members have enough QPs and satisfies other conditions like post count or days registered, they can be QMs themselves and start to give QPs. You can have this system in reverse with Spam Points if you like.

This seems like a lot of effort, and this Qualified Member role you propose sounds like such a responsibility. It is far too specialised for what the original proposal was.

The whole idea of this is to get some collaborative feedback, and by limiting it to a set of users makes it nothing more than a seal of approval from one of those users. It's too sparse.

By making use of a simple like system, one that gives no advantage to the topic/post other than a visual indicator to readers means that shilling attacks are virtually useless.

I think that Vod's suggestion needs no elaboration, it is what it is.

If there's no benefit other than basically highlighting posts by reputable people, why not just base it solely on the reputation system? Would that not accomplish the same thing? I disagree with that system as well, but I figure there's no reason for voting when reputation can handle it already.

Vod's suggestion only mentions seniority to prevent Brand New, Newbie, and Junior Members (for example) from skewing the like feedback, as they could be created as shill accounts. But the point of doing so would be very little.

If there is only the ability to like then you can't tarnish the quality of a topic or reply, only agree with it if that's what you want.

Implementing such a change in its simplest form is wise, plus restricting it to more senior members to trial it is useful. Wouldn't bother wasting time on making some complex system that has the potential for abuse.

Hmm... Maybe it could have NO effect at all, but have, say under a post, "xx, xx, xx liked this!" The first thing that comes to mind here is the official Rift forums (check out this post). It shows who likes the posts, but past that has no functionality. Those who want to ignore it can, and those who want to see who agrees can.


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




















Earn Devcoins by Writing
jbrnt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:34:23 PM
 #34

Having set people to determine what is "quality" (which is subjective by nature) leads to its own problems. People will accept payments in return for boosting the quality of people. "0.001 BTC per vote!" Not to mention this creates a centralized system for determining quality, which further creates its own set of problems.

I think it is impossible to measure usefulness or quality of posts without humans. Stats of a member or parameters of a post tell us nothing about the quality and relevance. There is no better way to capture this aspect without involving other members. When humans are involved, these bribes will happen.

Actually, it is not so centralised when the system matures. I think we can have more than a hundred of these QM in less than a year (depends on how high the bars are set). These QMs are allowed to be subjective. We need different voices in the community.
ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:43:38 PM
 #35

Having set people to determine what is "quality" (which is subjective by nature) leads to its own problems. People will accept payments in return for boosting the quality of people. "0.001 BTC per vote!" Not to mention this creates a centralized system for determining quality, which further creates its own set of problems.

I think it is impossible to measure usefulness or quality of posts without humans. Stats of a member or parameters of a post tell us nothing about the quality and relevance. There is no better way to capture this aspect without involving other members. When humans are involved, these bribes will happen.

Actually, it is not so centralised when the system matures. I think we can have more than a hundred of these QM in less than a year (depends on how high the bars are set). These QMs are allowed to be subjective. We need different voices in the community.

You also have to take in to consideration selective responses. Generally speaking, people are more open to voicing their opinions when they disagree with something or are upset. This is why a lot of reviews for companies and products are negative, rather than positive. We don't feel that same "need" to voice our opinions when we're happy. This is going to make its move into the system, such that if 10 are unhappy and 90 are happy, the 10 unhappy can still take the majority vote, despite being in the minority.


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




















Earn Devcoins by Writing
jbrnt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:44:29 PM
 #36

I think that Vod's suggestion needs no elaboration, it is what it is.

Vod's suggestion was simple and clear, a thumbsup button like we have on facebook.

I was reponding to taesup's call for suggestions on the new forum software. I was throwing out ideas on the reputation translation/implementation which includes but not restricted to the "like" system.
jbrnt
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672



View Profile
May 26, 2014, 10:59:08 PM
 #37

We don't feel that same "need" to voice our opinions when we're happy. This is going to make its move into the system, such that if 10 are unhappy and 90 are happy, the 10 unhappy can still take the majority vote, despite being in the minority.

There is no voting involved. The system is not there to ban members or analyse spam. It is there to tag quality posts. If a post is good but controversial, there is going to be less QM tagging it. That doesn't mean it is a bad quality post. The member who wrote it still gets QP which brings him closer to a QM if he is not already a QM.
taesup
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 99


View Profile
May 27, 2014, 05:21:20 AM
 #38

ranlo

So if activity were to be removed from the equation all together so that the only way a user can improved their ranking (aside from buying an account) is to generate content that others would like/upvote. Would that alleviate some of your concerns?

I am a Epochtalk (New Forum Software) Developer.
ranlo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1610



View Profile
May 27, 2014, 05:44:15 AM
 #39

ranlo

So if activity were to be removed from the equation all together so that the only way a user can improved their ranking (aside from buying an account) is to generate content that others would like/upvote. Would that alleviate some of your concerns?

I think that would help some. Things that put everyone on an equal level (all things considered) are good. When people can sell accounts all they want, basing things on activity is meaningless; it just caters to those with the most money to spend.

The system would definitely need to be fleshed out more, though, in order to give a better evaluation.


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




















Earn Devcoins by Writing
dserrano5
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848



View Profile
May 27, 2014, 09:52:40 AM
 #40

Hmm... Maybe it could have NO effect at all, but have, say under a post, "xx, xx, xx liked this!" The first thing that comes to mind here is the official Rift forums (check out this post). It shows who likes the posts, but past that has no functionality. Those who want to ignore it can, and those who want to see who agrees can.

FWIW I don't want my (dis)likes to be public.

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!