The problem with karma implementations is that they don't always encode for the best outcome. I am not sure what karma means on HN. There are some topics where you could very easily fish for karma by going with the prevailing thoughts in any given community. Post against the grain and loose karma. It's fairly predictable in most communities.
Then there are effects as I've seen in some of the Stack Exchange sites. One that comes to mind is ServerFault. Moderators and high-karma members with elevated privileges have turned that particular site into a nearly unusable and hostile environment for anyone outside a very narrow definition of what the "gang" wants.
This is an interesting effect because it encodes what a few privileged users want as opposed to what --conjecture-- a larger majority might be looking for out of the site. And, from a strict business view of the problem it reduces that audience and the applicability of the site/s by a potentially significant factor.
It's like having a mechanical engineering site where high-karma users have decided they only want to discuss hex bolts used by aircraft mechanics. You show-up to ask about hex bolts used on motorcycles and watch out!
Perhaps the ultimate questions --on a site-per-site basis-- might be:
- What's the design intent behind karma or user reputation?
- What is it you want to encode?
- How do you ensure that this is, in fact, encoded into the rating?
- How do you prevent users from polluting or de-valuing karma through
misinterpretation, petty/spiteful voting, "gang-like" behavior or other
degenerations?
- If karma is used to elevate user rights, how does it also affect
responsibilities? Does it impose a level of accountability?
- How do you keep karma "wars" from affecting your community? By this I
mean gang-like behavior by regulars who'll attack outside their pack
with the only tool they have, karma.
- How to you keep karma from affecting site business?
- Short of the benevolent dictator model, is there a better approach to
encoding user value, participation or relevance?
Not an easy problem to solve as most communities have discovered. For the most part HN seems to regulate rather nicely. We are all guilty of veering off here and there but eventually things come back to a reasonable center. Maybe it's because posts age very quickly and it takes a lot to stay in the first page or two. Other types of sites don't have that advantage.
Then there are effects as I've seen in some of the Stack Exchange sites. One that comes to mind is ServerFault. Moderators and high-karma members with elevated privileges have turned that particular site into a nearly unusable and hostile environment for anyone outside a very narrow definition of what the "gang" wants.
This is an interesting effect because it encodes what a few privileged users want as opposed to what --conjecture-- a larger majority might be looking for out of the site. And, from a strict business view of the problem it reduces that audience and the applicability of the site/s by a potentially significant factor.
It's like having a mechanical engineering site where high-karma users have decided they only want to discuss hex bolts used by aircraft mechanics. You show-up to ask about hex bolts used on motorcycles and watch out!
Perhaps the ultimate questions --on a site-per-site basis-- might be:
Not an easy problem to solve as most communities have discovered. For the most part HN seems to regulate rather nicely. We are all guilty of veering off here and there but eventually things come back to a reasonable center. Maybe it's because posts age very quickly and it takes a lot to stay in the first page or two. Other types of sites don't have that advantage.