This is an interesting idea. A terrible implementation, but that’s just because 50-100 feral bots can outperform a human on most any digital metric.Things humans can do that bots can’t tend to be really thinky, and so don’t make good, easy checks.
I, personally, believe we’ll be shoved off the greater Internet by bots and malicious automation one day. There’s no solution that isn’t “fight and lose” But yeah, interesting idea!
Or just stop caring about upvotes and downvotes?
Ok but the idea is based on countering bots and bot nets. The only thing it really changes is the threshold becomes more difficult but the difference between maybe a 601 and a 602 is astronomical.
I feel like it punishes real people more than bots. An exponential amount of clicks is easy for a bot to achieve.
Exactly. 1, 1000; bot doesn’t care. A human, on the other hand… this is a scheme to promote bot nets, not discourage them.
Not just clicks, I’d use that would be the first level or something. I dunno just an idea
Handle this server-side by scaling the upvote/downvote weight for every subsequent vote.
It still won’t affect bots.
As other commenters have said, disincentivizing downvotes would have a more profound effect.
A bit confusing. Presumably you mean “after giving an upvote”. In other words, to disincentivize upvotes.
Sounds like exactly the opposite of what would encourage friendly civil discourse: disincentivizing downvotes.
Slashdot got this right decades ago. No upvotes, no downvotes, just tags. Such as “informative”, “insightful”, “funny”, and a couple of more negative ones like (IIRC) “provocative” or “controversial”, which at least force you to say why you’re promoting or hating on someone’s good-faith contribution. But apparently that was all just too complex for the simpletons we really are.
If you want my approval, you need to make it as easy as possible.
Do you agree with me? Blink once for yes, twice for no.
