Timeline for Stricter trust model in the face of bot flood?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2022 at 19:38 | comment | added | user4581301 | So maybe upvotes should have the -1 penalty? C'mon. I'm trying to be kinder than my usual, 'Kill them." | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 10:49 | comment | added | VLAZ | @mickmackusa in addition, upvote pixies will some times try to "negate" a downvote. Which paradoxically means the content was "good" just because it's "bad". Rather than qualitative assessment of the content. And I gather this from actual comments I've seen where users have directly stated they'd upvote posts that have "downvotes without explanation". | |
| Dec 8, 2022 at 3:21 | comment | added | mickmackusa Mod | Do we need to most forthcoming about the valid reasons to upvote posts? Right now, users who I refer to as "Upvote Pixies" are upvoting answers that look like good answers and who have quickly answered a new question. It is, IMO, the Upvote Pixies that are a major impediment to curating bad content -- I cannot cast delete votes on posts which are upvoted. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 21:56 | comment | added | Ian Kemp - SO dead by AI greed | It's really sad that someone like me, who basically only ever uses this site nowadays to post on Meta, is in that top 250 downvoters list. Really goes to show just how few truly conscientious curators there are. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 19:12 | comment | added | user400654 | @gnat that depends on whether or not you care about the cost you've sunk into it. I'd probably be 100k by now if I hadn't had my downvoting record... but what does it matter? | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 19:02 | comment | added | TylerH | Hey, neat, I'm in the 95th percentile of downvoters on the site. | |
| Dec 7, 2022 at 0:20 | comment | added | user4581301 | Holy <expletive deleted>! That community dude is hard core! Time to up my game. I barely even made the list. | |
| Dec 6, 2022 at 18:38 | comment | added | Shog9 | Whatever psychology is applicable in your case, I think it's safe to say it's not an issue here @gnat. You're just maybe a bit of an outlier in this regard though. | |
| Dec 6, 2022 at 14:06 | comment | added | gnat | @Shog9 my voting stats suggest that I voted down at least 38,000 answers (more likely, twice as much). Are you sure that downvote cost is entirely psychological in my case | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 21:04 | comment | added | Shog9 | The downvote cost issue is almost entirely psychological, @erik - which is still an issue, but one we could and should solve instead of continuing to ignore. I proposed two approaches four years ago but SO, Inc didn't do jack with them because they were still terrified that folks would think downvotes were mean and stop using SO instead of stopping using the site because it was clogged with nonsense. I do hope they wise up before the latter is irreversible. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 20:30 | comment | added | Erik A | Since this is mostly about answers, it is also relevant that something that barely qualifies as an answer can be posted by a 1-rep user, but cannot be deleted by review queues and requires downvotes (that cost rep for the voting users) and multiple delete votes from users with over 10K rep to be deleted. Answers can't get closed for being a "try this: thing the OP said he tried" or being barely comprehensible and don't roomba. It takes a lot more work to delete an answer than to post one. Existing efforts mainly focus on questions, and that's a way easier problem. | |
| Dec 5, 2022 at 17:14 | history | answered | Shog9 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |