47 sats \ 11 replies \ @kevin 9 Feb 2022 \ on: Daily discussion thread
Is it just me or has this comment thing that we talked about yesterday escalated? It really is quite irritating
finally understand what people were complaining about... you're right that's really annoying.
reply
So doing Related: as a method to link threads with each other is an eyesore, and unpopular. And thus, that's a failed experiment.
When there's wide interest in a topic (e.g., the Bitcoin for Truckers / Tallycoin story, the Russia to treat bitcoin as currency story, the DOJ arrest of the Bitfinex hackers, etc.) there will be articles posted from numerous media sources, including not just our industry media (e.g., Bitcoin Magazine, CoinDesk, etc.) but that with a bit wider reach (e.g., Vice, ZeroHedge) and even mainstream media (e.g., BBC, FoxNews).
I forget what they do to accommodate this problem on Reddit ... where there are moderators who have tools such as lock comments, shadow ban, or even ability to delete outright. If I remember correctly, for duplicate stories on a single event, don't they lock the duplicates and tag those with something about there being numerous duplicates, and to check the front page? I don't even remember.
Other platforms, (Stack Exchange, and Quora, I think) do a good just of showing links to similar / related pages. That's loosely what I was aiming for, but ya -- that is resulting in more harm than good being done.
Elsewhere, I've seen like a superthread, so that conversation on that event / topic (e.g, Bitcoin for Truckers) occurs within a single post, no matter how many Posts with articles on the same topic get submitted. But with SN, I don't know how or if some consolidation would be possible, or even desirable.
Posting various articles for the same story (not an identical duplicate, but articles covering the same story from different online media) would likely earn little or nothing, for the person who posts them and thus there's no economic incentive for those to be posted. But for the exposure gained from being on SN, there may be numerous online media outlets that will submit every new story they publish as a post on SN, whether it earns any sats or not. I don't know if the switch to using the SN WoT helps to (or will help to) lessen visibility of those, like what would happen on a moderated platform.
But since doing those replies with Related: is received negatively (I suppose, it is a form of DDoS), I won't be doing anymore of those, unless there's explicit reason (e.g., "your question got a great answer over in [link to some other post].")
As an (minor) upside. it looks like this little experiment resulted in an example of how unwanted user behavior can be controlled by a design change.
reply
I suspected it was an experiment, but it does seem to be bothering users more than engaging them.
I think the main problem users have with this is that they think there's a discussion going on (particularly because there's multiple such comments rather than just one), they go through the trouble of clicking to read the discussion, and it's just links.
The solution to this might be build an automated related section below a post that a user can choose to look at if they want; this provides the value you were providing to user who wants it without introducing the problem of confusing users into thinking there's a discussion going on.
I created an issue for it https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news/issues/105. wdyt
reply
This points out another problem: you had no way of knowing your experiment wasn't working.
I'm open to other solutions to this but it might most naturally be downvotes.
reply
It might’ve. I’ll try to deploy something today.
reply
I created an issue for it. https://github.com/stackernews/stacker.news/issues/102
reply
👍
Just clicked into this thread here: #10992 - it's especially egregious considering the Twitter card 😆 Maybe we just need stricter rules?
Has there been any discussion on punishing users by taking some amount of sats the offender them and redistributing them to other users?
reply
There's been discussion of staking-like systems but the UX around that kind of stuff is complicated. I layout in the gh issue how I think it's best to handle it.
reply
Okay, I prevent the same user from submitting more than one reply directly to the same parent. This should prevent the most egregious cases of this.
reply
It just dawned on me that this might also be an issue where other users do the same thing on others posts: #11016 - I count 4 comments from one user
Another solution to this might be the ability for a user to hide other users in their feeds
reply
Do you mean it happens on several posts other than their own? Yeah it's not isolated behavior for sure. With the change I deployed, they'd have to reply to themselves, making these comments "one unit" at least isolating the noise of it. We'll probably need other layers to manage this kind of stuff:
- downvotes
- muting/blocking
In either case, it'd also reduce the user's trust losing them sats/ranking.
reply