Uchiha Nick wrote:i for one dislike Karma, but i do have some ideas for it;
when voting, simply create a "why" comment. if its short, give a few extra points to the voter, if its long, more.
vph wrote:well, to make it simple, every registered member should be able to rate a topic, regardless of weather he/she replies or not. Making certain technical requirements only complicates the manner, and more important imposing unnecessary constraints on users. Why? in order to make a rating, they MUST reply AND according to spec. That's too much as it goes into a realm of psychological uncertainty.
vph wrote:Let's summarize the ideas (because I feel like some are repeating the old ideas here and for the sake of what's coming up next) that I think the original poster would agree: Someone's karma is affected in two ways (a) if his rating conforms with the norm; this encourages responsibility, and (b) when his posts are rated; this encourages quality.
vph wrote:Now, I'd like to discuss the updating of karma in a manner that wasn't mentioned in the original theory.
Suppose A starts a topic, and B, C, D, E reply, and also rate A's topic.
Now the original theory says that A's karma should be updated according to the rating of B, C, D, and E, where each rating takes into account each of these individual's karma.
Up to now, the theory also says that, based on the collective, average rating of B, C, D, and E, the karma of each of B, C, D, and E is also affected based on how much each is conformed to that average rating.
However, .... MORE CAN BE SAID.
In practice, not only B rates A's topic, but likely B also rates the replies of C, D, and E. The same holds of each of C, D, and E.
This situation creates a complex scenerio, which however could help to compute karma more accurately.
For example, if C, D, and E each rates very highly B's reply to A's topic. Then, I'd argue that B's original rating (which is rated very highly by C,D, and E as said) to A's topic should be judged more in terms of weight. In fact, if C, D, and E unanimously think that B's reply to A is great, then B's rating to A should be affected by its rating from C, D, and E, as it is by B's own karma.
What this creates is a complete graph (or a clique) among all the participants of a topic, in this case A, B, C, D, and E. They rate each other's posts. And their decision should be have retrospective consequences. In other words, if after a long discussion with several rounds of rating, let's say everyone rates B's posts (within that thread) very highly, then B's original rating of A should be retrospectively counted more.
Then update mechanism is complicated but it makes the theory more reasonable, I think.
vph wrote:This mechanism, I think, will be more accurate, if people behave as they would without the karma system. If they try to abuse the system, I don't know what consequences it can have.
vph wrote:Then again, I think the karma system is not something that works for everyone.
DragonlordP wrote:Do you really think that administrators will waste their time checking out comments? Because I am 101% sure that after a while most comments will be like "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" just to match the minimum length.
This sounds great, and if we could keep a history of votes ever for a while it could be done. But the question then goes down to how to calculate it?
This mechanism, I think, will be more accurate, if people behave as they would without the karma system. If they try to abuse the system, I don't know what consequences it can have.
This is what needs to be though out. To a great extent the normalization process will alleviate a great deal of these issues, but still needs to be worked on further. If you can come up with some type of equasion for you above idea then we can logically think it out and think of ways to abuse it and correct it.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests