Low value, throw away comments - why are they made? \ stacker news ~meta

Low value, throw away comments - why are they made?

703 sats \ 56 comments \ @Signal312 23 Jul meta

I've been noticing a pattern recently - junk comments that say something like "Ummm seems good" or "ha ha ha".

For instance, this:

https://m.stacker.news/41264

I'm assume they're bots. Is there a reason people are doing this, do other people zap them just enough to make it worthwhile? Or are they somehow rewarded in the regular reward system? I'm not real familiar with the ins and outs of the reward system.

What's the best strategy - mute, downzap?

There's also the thought that came up a while back - someone creates a list of bot accounts, you (pay to?) "subscribe" to the list, you don't see the trash comments.

view all related items

401 sats \ 21 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

I think they're fishing for zaps. As long as they aren't getting zapped much they won't be getting rewards.

We should probably be downzapping them. My understanding is that if many of us downzap something, then it doesn't take very many sats to outlaw stuff.

Something I've been planning on writing up is why downzapping needs to be rewarded. I'll move that up in my queue.

136 sats \ 6 replies \ @DarthCoin 23 Jul

downzapping is already included in your daily rewards. sats you used to downzap are going to SN daily pool and then back to you... so downzapping are not "lost" sats in the end.

110 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

They don't count towards your ranking, though. I'll get into it in more detail at some point, but it's important to incentivize policing of common resources.

42 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 23 Jul

Yes and it shouldn't count for ranking.

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

Maybe not, but right now we have a freerider problem with respect to downzaps, because there's no direct incentive to do it.

52 sats \ 2 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 23 Jul

The incentive is curating our experience. If we allow direct sat incentives for downzapping, that seems like something that can get ugly fast.

33 sats \ 1 reply \ @Signal312 OP 23 Jul

Right but it seems like muting is the most cost effective way of curating our personal experience.

Whereas downzapping curates EVERYONE's experience.

176 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

It's important to get the incentives right, but this has been broadly and deeply studied by economists.

We know that communities under provision policing if individuals bear the entire cost of that policing. The incentive to free-ride is too high.

In the mean time, though, I'll start downzapping more often.

reply on another page

52 sats \ 4 replies \ @Signal312 OP 23 Jul

Why is downzapping better than muting?

I guess because downzapping affects ranking for everyone, whereas muting just hides certain users from me?

317 sats \ 0 replies \ @StillStackinAfterAllTheseYears 23 Jul

I look at muting as saying, "this content is not for me," while downzapping is saying, "this content actively makes Stacker News worse for everyone."

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

That's right. Also, @k00b recently described how accounts that get lots of downzaps have reduced reach, so it helps with future spam posts too.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 23 Jul

Yes, if enough past content was outlawed, their future content will start as outlawed.

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 23 Jul

muting also works

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 23 Jul

I look forward to this! The two posts I had today about DC security and then the USSS director stepping down both started getting randomly blown up with these comments and I was super confused

21 sats \ 7 replies \ @Satosora 23 Jul

I havent downzapped yet. I want to be careful how I use it since I dont want to bring someone down based on my opinion.

22 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xIlmari 23 Jul

When zapping, you bring someone up based on your opinion and that's okay. So why would the opposite be wrong?

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

That's a good question, but it does feel different for some reason.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 24 Jul

I guess that is true, but I havent really thought of it in that context.

42 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

That's how I feel too. The ones I've done today have only been one sat. That way if I'm the only one who downzaps, then it probably won't do anything. However, if others do, then it makes a big difference having another downzapper.

42 sats \ 2 replies \ @Satosora 23 Jul

I also havent muted anyone, since I feel that would really ruin my experience here. Everyone should have a right to their opinion, even if I dont agree with it. Muting doesnt make the problem go away.

41 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

I don't mute either. Depending on what the problem is, it might help. If it's spam, then muting reduces the chances of getting zapped and potentially makes the spammer give up.

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 23 Jul

Right. Lately I have felt that that there is a lot of AI programs on here posting.

252 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 23 Jul

Undisciplined is right. We need to incentivize downzapping.

Strangely, some folks end up zapping these sometimes. Then we have a few 1 sat to post territories that get spammed to heck despite good intentions.

2129 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

I can pull together some stuff on the role punishment in public goods provision, if you want. It's a really interesting topic.

63 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 23 Jul

I'd love that actually.

131 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 23 Jul

I suspect they zap each other but that shouldn’t influence ranking or their status. They might think it does.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @nichro 23 Jul

I've noticed those recently. Assumed it was a bot, some comments don't seem to make much sense in context either.

I down zapped a few

73 sats \ 12 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 Jul

I have encountered none of those comments so far!

Whenever I see a comment or a post that's visibly spam or sat-farming, I automatically mute the author. That routine has led my feed to be so decent that SN has become my go-to site.

@Undisciplined sorry to tag you, I think down-zapping works as is. What should be incentivized is muting, regarding trust-score. I think donw-zapping and muting play along nicely, because you pay if you want other person to degrade it's trust score, but muting only would improve (if incentivized) the personal trust score, and you have to post (thus, pay) and gain the sats if you want that trust score to come to effect. This way there's no incentives for sybil schemes.

21 sats \ 11 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

I don't see why muting needs any additional incentivization: it's already free and it only effects the muter. Even if it becomes something that impacts trust scores, the fact that it's free means it doesn't need to be incentivized.

Down-zapping needs to be incentivized because it's costly and the equilibrium solution is too little downzapping because of free-riding.

I'll try to get a post out about this soon and we can hash it all out there.

62 sats \ 10 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 Jul

The incentive to muting, understood as flagging, is on trust score itself, to reward the moderation, even at personal level. Down-zapping could be rewarded in the same way, but at that point I think that we could ditch down-zapping altogether and stay solely with muting.

164 sats \ 9 replies \ @Signal312 OP 23 Jul

Looks like the trust score is the "web of trust" described here: #8349

Is there more info on how it works currently? The link in the post (https://stacker.news/wot) no longer works.

Also...here's an idea about muting.

How about this

Have a way to mute a low-quality poster, for free.
But ALSO be able to do a different type of mute, a 10x mute, that would cost sats. That would be a "mute with emphasis". And that type of mute would be a signal to the rest of us that the poster is to be avoided. And then that type of mute could be rewarded.
And then remove the downzap entirely.

That way you're not wasting time with individual posts, rather you're acting at the user level. More efficient?

190 sats \ 8 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 Jul

There might be something there. I'm going to tinker as I go...

What we have to replicate is the standard free market:

If your product is good, people buys it (zaps), your trust score improves which leads to more sells -> you grow
If your product is bad, people do not buys it (equals mute), your trust score downgrades which leads to less sells -> you go down

One key characteristic of the market is that each opinion is from an actual person, that is, sybil tactics are extremely difficult or impossible. Opinions are free, so you don't have to pay to say that something is good or bad, which helps information to be broadcasted more efficiently and accurately. Now the reason we have "paid opinions" (i.e. down-zaps) is to discourage sybil behaviour. But this also discourages free opinion, because having to pay to say something is bad is functionally a penalization to that kind of opinion as much as a penalization to spam. Now to have free opinion but to penalize sybil tactics you would have to pay to enter SN upfront, but that would discourage everyone from entering SN. So, an account must be free, to let people in, and opinions must be free, to not to discourage flagging. How can we allow that while avoiding sybil tactics?

No reward other than trust score improvement can be applied, again, to avoid sybil tactics. Trust score rewards do translate in gains at the moment of making material that gets compensated. That PoW workflow is a great spam deterrent. A sybil tactic there is not a problem if the material is good, only spam is tackled that way which is correct.

So, the only conundrum to work out is: what PoW can we implement so to increment the probability of a user to be an individual, in order to get the free market scheme working correctly? Pure behaviour is not a good indicator thanks to bots, so the solution must consist of a cost in sats. It can't be upfront, it can't be at the moment of expressing opinion. Thus, where? The only way I see it working is by considering the zaps you gave, which if I'm not mistaken is considered already in the trust score.

So there is your PoW, in your trust score, which leverages your work and interactions by considering the zaps you received and the zaps you gave.

It could then be as follows:

Down-zapping can be discarded, just to avoid confusion with "negative muting". Being "outlawed" remains at discretion of a territory owner.
Everyone can mute, so that the consequence of muting only applies to the one who mutes. The user muted is not affected in any way.
If a person haves enough trust score (and proportional to it), apart from muting he can also "negatively mute", which does impacts the muted user trust score. Of course negative impacts are balanced against positive impacts (getting zaps and interacting and etc) to get the end result.
The trust-score should be shown next to all users, which is the only way to broadcast the information.

141 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

I just put out my first post on the topic: #619793.

It's not specifically about Stacker News and downzapping, but it's the conceptual jumping off point that I'll use for that discussion. Of course, if you want to put your thoughts together into a post, then I'll just jump into the comments.

90 sats \ 2 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 Jul

Just to keep the thread of discussion I prefer to continue in your post if you don't mind. I can paste the above comment there if you think it adds to it

41 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 23 Jul

Absolutely, it's a great comment. I still need to think more about trust scores. I'm not aware of any analogue to them in the experimental econ literature.

view replies

31 sats \ 3 replies \ @Bell_curve 23 Jul

Being "outlawed" is discretionary?

I think "outlaw" comes from many downzaps. Let me find a recent thread about this.

I found it: #615359

21 sats \ 2 replies \ @didiplaywell 23 Jul

It does! But so far I know territories can also be moderated by the owner, isn't?

20 sats \ 1 reply \ @Bell_curve 23 Jul

Owner can moderate territory but outlaw extends beyond territory

I own a territory, let's test if I can moderate you into an outlaw lol

view replies

42 sats \ 0 replies \ @SimpleStacker 23 Jul

I can only assume it's some primitive form of bot evolution

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 23 Jul

good catch

we should downzap

not...a...bot.... must .... reveal.... true.... identity

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @random_ 23 Jul

45 sats back on a 1 sat comment is better than any investment I've ever made.

31 sats \ 0 replies \ @fm 23 Jul

What's the best strategy - mute, downzap?

Probably both

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xIlmari 23 Jul

While Undisciplined is most likely right, it is also possible that they have absolutely nothing to add to the discussion but have a need for social connection, so comments like "this", "nice one" or "+1" let them feel part of the thread.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Satosora 23 Jul

oh man, those look EXACTLY like my comments!

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @Msd0457890 23 Jul

I have always encountered types of comments like that and the worst thing is that they give it sat and I don't understand why.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @zuspotirko 23 Jul

I have noticed those kinds of comments a lot even from "big" accounts with real usernames here as well.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @grayruby 23 Jul

Seems like the same user. Personally, I would just ignore or downzap them.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @DEADBEEF 23 Jul

Some people just like to hear themselves talk I think. I know some people that always have to get the last word in on a conversation even though it is clearly ended.

Maybe fishing for zaps too. Some are definitely bots as well.

21 sats \ 0 replies \ @TheBTCManual 23 Jul

Lol engagement farming/zap farming was always going to happen, I think that as long as long as their can still be discussion that pushes the fluff stuff down its really all that matters, you'll never get rid of people coming in to try and do the minimum

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @IamSINGLE 23 Jul

They may also be people who don't know English. They might not know how to form a sentence! I'm just looking for a positive reason. But I can guess, I'm wrong! 😉

These are definitely those who are bots or people who join thinking that they can get zaps from Stackers for any 'haha, heehee, o, oo, ah, ou, or any sound that even animals can articulate! We have power to downzap and we should use it whenever we see such Stackers! Just downzap after looking at the profile of a stacker.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @NaOD 23 Jul outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Octopus 23 Jul outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @77edb424fc 23 Jul outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @5e5d0604a5 23 Jul outlawed

stackers have outlawed this. turn on wild west mode in your /settings to see outlawed content.