The downvote button is Reddit's second biggest problem. It was meant to signal that a piece of content was either off-topic or broke a rule, as a way to alleviate the pressure of moderation. That's a fine theory, but it's simply not possible in an anonymous and unaccountable environment. It increases the trolling and makes it easy for bad actors to both control competitor content and promote their own.
> The downvote button is Reddit's second biggest problem. It was meant to signal that a piece of content was either off-topic or broke a rule, as a way to alleviate the pressure of moderation.
That seems inaccurate. The up/down arrows feed the "hotness" algorithm, and it was never a means of moderation, but does have a side effect similar. You're probably confusing "curation" with "moderation". I can tell you with high confidence, being a mod of several big sub-reddit's, that I give zero-fucks about the up or down votes given to any item in the moderation queue.
Further more, the actual numbers for up/down votes is fuzzed by reddit, intentionally misreported to sabotage those who try to game the system. They mess with the feedback loop, making it harder to vote brigade.
> The up/down arrows feed the "hotness" algorithm, and it was never a means of moderation, but does have a side effect similar. You're probably confusing "curation" with "moderation".
That's not true. Downvoting[1] is absolutely intended to be a way to alleviate moderation duties, so that off-topic or inappropriate posts are made less visible and the moderators don't need to micro-manage every single comment.
> Further more, the actual numbers for up/down votes is fuzzed by reddit, intentionally misreported to sabotage those who try to game the system. They mess with the feedback loop, making it harder to vote brigade.
The vote fuzzing doesn't actually stop brigading at all. If it did, there wouldn't be any, yet everyone acknowledges that the vote gaming is ubiquitous and constant. Bad actors don't care about the numbers Reddit is reporting to them -- they vote until the desired effect is achieved, not until some standardized number of votes is hit.
"Vote. If you think something contributes to conversation, upvote it. If you think it does not contribute to the subreddit it is posted in or is off-topic in a particular community, downvote it."
"Think before you downvote and take a moment to ensure you're downvoting someone because they are not contributing to the community dialogue or discussion. If you simply take a moment to stop, think and examine your reasons for downvoting, rather than doing so out of an emotional reaction, you will ensure that your downvotes are given for good reasons."
"Mod points award" is interesting. It basically incents the awardee to put quite a bit of thought behind their moderation decisions, but the flip side is that you get far fewer datapoints per comment. Perhaps there might be a way to use both systems concurrently.
