This is the Quality Contributions Roundup. It showcases interesting and well-written comments and posts from the period covered. If you want to get an idea of what this community is about or how we want you to participate, look no further (except the rules maybe--those might be important too).
As a reminder, you can nominate Quality Contributions by hitting the report button and selecting the "Actually A Quality Contribution!" option. Additionally, links to all of the roundups can be found in the wiki of /r/theThread which can be found here. For a list of other great community content, see here.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Proposal: display upvotes and downvotes separately rather than adding them.
I find vote scores on my own comments to be useful in determining how many people say/engaged-with/agreed-with posts I wrote as a sort of feedback mechanism for determining what is and is not good content I should make more of (and partly just as an ego-boost).
However there's an important distinction between a post that got 1 upvote, and a post that got 30 upvotes and 29 downvotes. The first is a thing that nobody care about, the second is a thing that lots of people cared about but was controversial. And I suppose to some extent the number of comment replies will be proportional to this, but I think the raw votes would be useful not just for the author but for the people viewing the comment.
Alternate Proposal: make three different vote buttons. "This is quality content, I agree with this, I disagree with this". And nothing for low-quality content other than ignoring it or reporting it if it breaks rules. Explicitly separating quality from agreement makes people's intentions more transparent. (Though too much complexity risks reducing engagement with the system)
Doesn't this already exist? Reports, upvotes and downvotes. The only thing to fix this system is obviously to separate upvotes and downvotes, but also to not punish a person for getting downvotes, i've heard this site bans you automatically if you go below a certain threshold. That runs directly counter to any sort of intellectual discussion, a controversial opinion should not be shunned.
Source? I never heard of that.
It's something called the "new-user filter", though It's not based on account age.
How it works, is that if your account has too low karma, you're effectively shadowbanned and your posts will not be visible without admin approval. Of course, you're never told if this filter is active or not.
At that point, your participation Is completely based on how the janitor is feeling that day.
https://www.themotte.org/post/479/calling-all-lurkers-share-your-dreams/94545?context=8#context
You're kinda misunderstanding it.
First, note that "how long have you been posting" is also a factor - everyone has gone through the post filter.
Second, we're pretty lax on the filter. It's mostly just "is this person spamming".
Third, this place is far more upvote-happy than downvote-happy. If you do manage to somehow drop into the Downvoted Realm, quite frankly you're probably on the edge of getting banned anyway.
Fourth, your participation is always based on how the moderators feel. Sorry.
We do have an actual shadowban system; it gets used rarely, mostly in cases of repeated ban evasion or literal spambots. In this case your participation is not based on how the moderators feel because the moderators don't even see it.
I'm not sure what the threshold actually is, but I'm pretty sure "posting pro-SJ stuff civilly" will generally get more downvotes than upvotes (though the ratio will be significantly better than if you're actually being a cock).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link