

Tell HN: A proposed change to assigning karma to submissions - RiderOfGiraffes

There's a very long thread about karma, submissions, comments, bots, and improving HN over here:<p>http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2386443<p>One of the proposals in particular strikes me as having real potential:<p>http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387216<p>Problem is, it's deep in a long thread, and not many people will see it.  Hence I post this to help it get some attention.  It's not mine - tt's better than anything I've thought of.<p>(edited to fix the link (even though it's (not clickable)))
======
Udo
> _1\. When a link is submitted, it doesn't actually appear on HN until a
> certain (fixed?) time T has elapsed after its first submission._

And what is T going to be? That means HN won't be able to react quickly if
something unexpected comes up.

> _3\. Karma from article upvotes is shared equally between all those users._

Doesn't that mean people will submit "obvious" links even more often, because
shared Karma off a large cake is still easier than making an insightful
comment. At least right now, people have to check whether the link was already
posted. With this proposal, I'd just have to submit every Slashdot and Quora
link known to man and be assured that I'd get karma for it.

> _5\. Breaking news doesn't appear on HN as quickly as it does now; but if
> lots of people are submitting it, it still gets in pretty fast. (Maybe good,
> maybe bad.)_

I think this is a solution to a non-problem. Even though a duplicate link-
checker would be great for HN, the real issue is low-quality links that
sometimes make it onto the front page; every once in a while even a submit bot
finds something interesting. I'm fine with that, since the overall quality of
articles is still very high.

If we're actually complaining about how every blog blurp of certain HN
personalities makes it to the front page, then I'm afraid the problem is not
with the site's code, but with the way we personally handle reputation around
here. And I don't really care which user gets the karma for the next jacquesm
story.

------
revorad
A much easier change would be to simply not give users karma points for
submissions. Karma only for comments.

Those who object saying that there won't be any incentive left for submitting
are clearly on HN only for the karma. It won't be so bad to lose them.

~~~
notahacker
The other reason in favour of doing that is that comments get both up and
downvotes and therefore represent the _net_ perceived value of the user's
contributions.

New post submitting is almost guaranteed to be upvoted. (I don't know whether
flags give negative karma, but I'm pretty sure people flag less often for
different reason)

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Clickables:

Proposal: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2387216>

Parent: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2386443>

(edited to fix the link)

------
nbpoole
Link to the proposal goes to a blank page (just the header, no content)

------
bmelton
I liked my idea better.

The basic proposal is that submissions cost x karma, where x is a predefined
value that should be relatively small (say 25, 50?).

To submit a post, you must have at least x karma, and you SPEND that karma on
the submission.

If the article is upvoted at least x times, the karma is refunded. If it
doesn't, then that karma is gone.

For 'failed' articles (meaning articles that did not get enough upvotes to
attain the refund), submissions from that submitter now cost y karma, where y
= the previous x * 2.

Assuming x is 25, my second submission after a failed first submission now
costs 50 karma, but only has to reach y/2 karma to get the refund. The refund
action sets x back to the default, base x value.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
I agree that your proposal will most likely make people think harder before
submitting, but it doesn't solve the problem of sharing karma amongst several
people who see the same link and perhaps should be equally rewarded. The
scheme lunk to here helps to prevent the rush to submit, and therefore allows
time for reflection, while simultaneously rewarding people more equitably.

All the schemes proposed have good points and bad points, but I think gjm11's
proposal has lots of good points, and some good features that yours doesn't
have.

To some extent, of course, it's irrelevant, since none of these are likely to
see the light of day. Having said that, gjm11's scheme seems fairly simple to
implement.

~~~
Udo
I like bmelton's idea better as well.

> _but it doesn't solve the problem of sharing karma amongst several people
> who see the same link and perhaps should be equally rewarded_

I don't see the point why the system should hand out gold stars for effort.
Whoever comes first, gets to host the thread. What's wrong with that?

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Personally, I see that effect as part of the cause of the rush to submit
mediocre links, and I don't think bmelton's idea will fix that. Further,
rightly or wrongly, I get a vague sense of injustice knowing that one person
submits a valuable link and gets loads of karma, while someone else
independently submits the same link moments later and gets none at all.

It doesn't seem fair.

I know, life's not fair, and anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you
something, but even so, it nags at me. A good system should be fair, and be
seen to be fair. If it isn't, it's like a code smell. Maybe it works, for some
sense of "works," but there's probably a better way to do it.

But really, at this point I no longer care. I'll watch the debate with some
disinterest.

~~~
Udo
> _But really, at this point I no longer care. I'll watch the debate with some
> disinterest._

Come on, don't be like that. You started this thread! Let's just argue the
pros and cons, there is nothing personal about that.

> _Personally, I see that effect as part of the cause of the rush to submit
> mediocre links, and I don't think bmelton's idea will fix that._

But you said you believed that it will make people think harder before
submitting a link, so we basically agree that the number of submissions will
come down and people will focus more on what's important to them. bmelton's
solution would be easy to implement and easy to understand. It _will_ improve
the quality of posts, and it _will_ mean less trash on the /newest page as
well, leading to better chances for good material to surface.

By the way, I don't agree with bmelton about the last part where the cost of
submission climbs steadily. Just make it a fixed amount. Let's say 20 karma.

The only problem I see with this approach is that it will be easy for people
with a lot of karma to abuse the system. Nearly every user name I click on has
several thousands of points to spare.

At this point I believe we are in danger of taking this whole karma thing too
seriously.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes

      >> But really, at this point I no longer care.
      >> I'll watch the debate with some disinterest.
    
      > Come on, don't be like that. You started this thread!
    

Only because I thought it was an idea with some value.

    
    
      > Let's just argue the pros and cons, there is nothing
      > personal about that.
    

Never said or thought there was.

    
    
      >> Personally, I see that effect as part of the cause
      >> of the rush to submit mediocre links, and I don't
      >> think bmelton's idea will fix that.
    
      > ...
    

I've just started a point by point reply and I've realised that I really don't
care. I'll let people who do care argue the pros and cons - I don't think it
matters, it won't change. Besides, if I've learned anything, I've learned that
everything I believe about people's behavior is probably wrong.

    
    
      > The only problem I see with this approach is that it
      > will be easy for people with a lot of karma to abuse
      > the system. Nearly every user name I click on has
      > several thousands of points to spare.
    

I first came to this site when PG asked me to submit a link that I'd sent him.
If I'd had to accumulate karma before submitting I wouldn't be here. Perhaps
that's themain thing that bothers me about such barriers to entry. The really
clever people I personally know would mostly just not bother and go elsewhere.
Many of the mediocre people would stay, comment, get karma, and feel a sense
of accomplishment.

Who would you rather have?

    
    
      > At this point I believe we are in danger of taking
      > this whole karma thing too seriously.
    

But like it or not, it will - and does - drive a lot of the behavior on the
site. Getting it right, or even getting it better, would be a Good Thing(tm).

~~~
Udo
> _Besides, if I've learned anything, I've learned that everything I believe
> about people's behavior is probably wrong._

What do you mean by that?

> _If I'd had to accumulate karma before submitting I wouldn't be here.
> Perhaps that's themain thing that bothers me about such barriers to entry._

Many communities have these barriers and in the occasional situation where
HN's submission quality suffers, it's partly due to the fact that people can
submit links without limit.

> _I first came to this site when PG asked me to submit a link that I'd sent
> him._

I believe most people come here to comment first, then later they discover how
to post their own links. It's basic etiquette to find out more about a site's
style first before imposing content on it like this. It's highly unusual for
(non-spam) users that are not already part of a community to post an article.
In your very very special case, this process was inverted because you were
specifically invited. PG could easily have given your account a "free karma
bonus" to allow you to post.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes

      >> Besides, if I've learned anything, I've learned that
      >> everything I believe about people's behavior is
      >> probably wrong.
    
      > What do you mean by that?
    

Every time I've tried to reason carefully about the effect something will
have, or the factors that will drive behavior, or the reasons people will do
things, I've been wrong. I've been reading things like Dan Ariely's
irrationality pieces, and Freakonomics, and other similar works, and nothing
really resonates with me. In discussion with my wife and other close friends
the consensus is taht it a very real sense I'm simply "not normal."

So protracted discussions about what might or might not "fix HN" are likely -
for me - to be unprofitable. Experiment is essential, and I don't have the
means.

Or the time.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
Aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhhh !!!

Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry - dogfood, dogfood - check your work, use what you
produce, follow the links properly.

 _Mea culpa_ \- apologies - link now fixed.

------
pclark
over engineering to solve what problem?

------
bmelton
The proposal is taking me to a blank page.

Edit: It's fixed now. Disregard.

