Not a single karma
Social networks, web 2.0, community blogs ... you flinch? I understand you, but nevertheless I invite you to take a brief brainstorming session. This time, I propose to talk about karma / rating, etc.
So, let's imagine that we have a certain community that brings together users within a certain topic and allows them to write in collective blogs.
We need to implement mechanisms that allow this community to independently filter content and decide what is good and what is bad.
It would seem that nothing is easier. The mechanism working on the same habr. All articles are added to the site, there is the possibility of voting. The main article gets after a certain amount of points. The mechanism has proven itself remarkably, but there is one big BUT. However that may be, habr is a geeky community, where many people sit for hours and it is thanks to them that articles from the “new” section go to the main page and become accessible to others.
')
In our case, such an audience most likely will not. People come to the site to read the latest news and just as quickly go. Many simply read RSS. That is, most likely, there will be practically no people who will bring the news to home and they will go unnoticed. In addition, the specifics are such that making people wait until the opportunity to write something appears is also not very correct.
We come to the conclusion that, most likely, the habr mechanism is not for us.
However, we need to somehow protect ourselves from debris that passersby can leave.
Good old pre-moderation is also not our method. This is very annoying when you write an article, add it to the site, and then wait for the moderator to wake up and decide to look at the site.
As a result of such reflections, the outlines of his method appeared. I proceeded from the fact that in the first place our audience is supposed to be quite adult and reasonable, as well as from the fact that a person will not always vote for a good article, but with a high probability will put a minus obviously junk.
Instead of “karma”, for each user the concept of “coefficient of trust” (KD) is introduced. For now let's call it that.
CD is the value that determines the “adequacy” of the author.
Confidence, unlike karma, has a lower and upper bar. lower bar - 0 (the author is absolutely inadequate). Top bar, for example, 100.
By default, new users get a certain average value. That is, we still have no reason to not trust them, but it is still too early to absolutely trust.
An article whose author's CD is not less than the permissible border (the permissible border is approximately equal to the CD of the new user) automatically goes to the main page
At the time of writing, the article’s CD is set equal to the user's CD. As a result of voting for an article, its CD is changed in one direction or another, taking into account the CD of voters (for example, two negative votes of people with CD 30 and 40, are completely canceled by one positive vote of a person with CD 70).
In most cases, the article will just get on the main page and it will be read / commented. In rare cases, the article will be minus and disappear from the main one. Correspondingly, the author’s CD will fall down and the next time his articles will either fall into the “new” ones, or, upon reaching zero CD, he will not have the opportunity to write to collective blogs.
How to deal with personal blogs is not entirely clear. Such a mechanism has only recently come to mind and has not yet had time to mature, but I would still like to hear your opinions. Perhaps it will be possible to come up with something new or improve what is.
So, let's imagine that we have a certain community that brings together users within a certain topic and allows them to write in collective blogs.
We need to implement mechanisms that allow this community to independently filter content and decide what is good and what is bad.
It would seem that nothing is easier. The mechanism working on the same habr. All articles are added to the site, there is the possibility of voting. The main article gets after a certain amount of points. The mechanism has proven itself remarkably, but there is one big BUT. However that may be, habr is a geeky community, where many people sit for hours and it is thanks to them that articles from the “new” section go to the main page and become accessible to others.
')
In our case, such an audience most likely will not. People come to the site to read the latest news and just as quickly go. Many simply read RSS. That is, most likely, there will be practically no people who will bring the news to home and they will go unnoticed. In addition, the specifics are such that making people wait until the opportunity to write something appears is also not very correct.
We come to the conclusion that, most likely, the habr mechanism is not for us.
However, we need to somehow protect ourselves from debris that passersby can leave.
Good old pre-moderation is also not our method. This is very annoying when you write an article, add it to the site, and then wait for the moderator to wake up and decide to look at the site.
As a result of such reflections, the outlines of his method appeared. I proceeded from the fact that in the first place our audience is supposed to be quite adult and reasonable, as well as from the fact that a person will not always vote for a good article, but with a high probability will put a minus obviously junk.
Instead of “karma”, for each user the concept of “coefficient of trust” (KD) is introduced. For now let's call it that.
CD is the value that determines the “adequacy” of the author.
Confidence, unlike karma, has a lower and upper bar. lower bar - 0 (the author is absolutely inadequate). Top bar, for example, 100.
By default, new users get a certain average value. That is, we still have no reason to not trust them, but it is still too early to absolutely trust.
An article whose author's CD is not less than the permissible border (the permissible border is approximately equal to the CD of the new user) automatically goes to the main page
At the time of writing, the article’s CD is set equal to the user's CD. As a result of voting for an article, its CD is changed in one direction or another, taking into account the CD of voters (for example, two negative votes of people with CD 30 and 40, are completely canceled by one positive vote of a person with CD 70).
In most cases, the article will just get on the main page and it will be read / commented. In rare cases, the article will be minus and disappear from the main one. Correspondingly, the author’s CD will fall down and the next time his articles will either fall into the “new” ones, or, upon reaching zero CD, he will not have the opportunity to write to collective blogs.
How to deal with personal blogs is not entirely clear. Such a mechanism has only recently come to mind and has not yet had time to mature, but I would still like to hear your opinions. Perhaps it will be possible to come up with something new or improve what is.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/21811/
All Articles