zlacker

I disagree about HN being among the best for managing judgment. Down-voting requires X amount of karma but up-voting doesn't.

>>Dowwie+(OP)
I think that’s a key element to the success. It introduces an obvious upward bias in karma, but I don’t see that as a problem.

For one, it prevents creating new accounts to downvote someone that pisses you off. For me personally, it means I downvote only for “adds absolutely nothing and is somehow harmful to HN community”. I probably upvote : downvote at 20:1 or greater.

When deciding if a comment voting system is good or bad, I look heavily towards the outcome, and secondarily towards the mechanism. I think outcome on HN is second to none.

>>sokolo+K1
Fine. HN is the best among the contenders, but that's not something that one ought to hang one's hat on. Posts don't rise on their own merits here. If that is a goal, there is much room for improvement. There are a number of situational factors that influence whether any post will receive attention. These include, but are not limited to timing, competition, the new post reader archetype and his/her motivations to participate, etc.

>>Dowwie+o7
I don't think that limiting downvotes to accounts with X karma is a significant contributor to the problem of getting attention to a new high-quality post on a fairly high-volume site.

>>sokolo+m8
I'm not suggesting changing the rules on downvoting as a solution. I've considered far more drastic measures!

>>Dowwie+L8
some hacks I think could increase quality:

  - mandatory 60 second re-click to submit a comment, without edits
  - mandatory 60 second re-click on votes after a rate threshold is exceeded
  - multiple choice votes to express motivation, intention, feedback
  - do not publish karma numbers
  - publish "example threads" that show values being practiced, including dead links/comments examples
  - randomly assign usernames every 12 months
  - tags and tag feeds