
Feature request: Only allow upvotes from users with enough karma - jkabrg
On Stackexchange users only get the right to upvote if they have earned enough rep. That way users can&#x27;t create fake accounts to upvote their posts and increase their rep. On this site though, some upvotes don&#x27;t increase your rep. Instead, this site uses heuristics to decide whether an upvote is &quot;fake&quot; or not. The problem with that is it&#x27;s strange when half your upvotes don&#x27;t add to your reputation.<p>Why shouldn&#x27;t this site copy Stack Exchange?
======
pavlov
How about a halfway solution: new/low-karma users can upvote comments but not
submissions.

That way new users can still contribute positively to discussions they
appreciate, but can't manipulate the front page.

~~~
sachleen
The threshold could be very low for gaining upvote privilege. But yes, I like
this idea better. As a long time reader but someone who doesn't comment much,
I don't like the idea of being further restricted on what users like me can't
do. I upvote things I find interesting even if I don't comment often.

------
dragonwriter
> The problem with that is it's strange when half your upvotes don't add to
> your reputation.

Well, first, I don't like calling total karma reputation. Established users on
HN definitely are likely to have a reputation as well as a karma aggregate,
but the two aren't closely related.

Second, I don't see the problem. It's only an issue if karma total is a metric
you are trying to manage, but that's not a behavior I think HN wants to do
more to encourage.

------
stevenicr
I wonder if anyone has come up with or tried a system that has up /down vote
as being factually inaccurate, and a separate one for I downvote cuz I don't
like this, although I cant't say it's factually wrong. Things like that.

It seems that different people use these things for different reasons - and
they may not be wrong, but the affects on the stories / comments could be to
the same even if it was not the intention of the voter.

I've kicked around ideas about differing voting options for social sites, and
have some options that include emojis and such, just to add context to the
vote.

Certainly good civil discourse can be better if people can admit they don't
like something, or want it to change, even if the facts of a certain piece are
accurate.

OF course having an "downvote not as innacurate, but missing other facts such
as blah blah blah.. or downvote as appearing to purposefully cherry pick some
facts and leaving out other well known facts in an effort to scew the views of
others".. these kinds of votes would add to other people's understanding of
conversations perhaps..

Sites could have other views the lead threads for more info on hover / long
press.. with options for "more facts people have suggested are left out" \-
stuff like that..

and of course change your viewing of threads based upon your circle, or
tribe.. and show the view if followed opposite tribe.. things like that.

I for one would like to see these things happen all around the web - just no
idea how to code it, and how the ux could be done. Fancy total re-arrange ajax
maybe?

Of course people could self select their "tribe" democrats vs republicans for
example.. but machines could also create their own "tribes" based upon ips or
other info known about groups of users...

tap to see how group of google employees all pushed up or down tap to see how
ips from gov addy have pushed up doen..

stuff like that.

I think I have been voted up and down for things, and don't know why - so no
way to learn or debate it, but of course this is HN and not some international
televised and rated broadcast or whatever, and apparently there are methods
for people to view things that are voted down or whatever if they wish.

Coming from the sony dash app and tablet version mainly, I still don't
understand how this thing works all the way it seems.

