100 seems a bit harsh; I’d be happy with having a minimum karma of 1 here (enough to block 99% of spam, we can downvote and manually handle the rest), and 20 on the main section, until we have a real problem of too many low quality posts there.
But posts are times-10 on the main forum—a −8 post there will take someone from +20 to −60, and it’s easy for an enthusiastic newbie to make an error of that magnitude (-8 is not very negative by LW standards). And +20 is easy to reach with a couple good quotes in a quotesthread and a week or two of non-idiotic comments.
I think there are two different conversations going on here—you’re talking about a karma threshold that would be good for humans, and they’re talking about a karma threshold that would be good for bot prevention.
100 seems a bit harsh; I’d be happy with having a minimum karma of 1 here (enough to block 99% of spam, we can downvote and manually handle the rest), and 20 on the main section, until we have a real problem of too many low quality posts there.
People have made 20 without knowing what makes a good post, made a bad post, and gotten downvoted into oblivion.
I have no problem with people doing this. It’s the bots that I want to discourage, so I think Emile’s proposal is good.
But posts are times-10 on the main forum—a −8 post there will take someone from +20 to −60, and it’s easy for an enthusiastic newbie to make an error of that magnitude (-8 is not very negative by LW standards). And +20 is easy to reach with a couple good quotes in a quotesthread and a week or two of non-idiotic comments.
I think there are two different conversations going on here—you’re talking about a karma threshold that would be good for humans, and they’re talking about a karma threshold that would be good for bot prevention.
Though if the thresholds are going to be changed, it’s probably easier to do it all at once.
That was my thought process—if you’re changing it, you should change it to the correct numbers, and I like 20⁄100.
You’re right, of course. So is luminosity.