I frequently feel a desire to do “medium” upvotes. Specifically, I want tiers of upvote for:
1) minor social approval (equivalent to smiling at a person when they do something I think should receive _some_ signal of reward, in particular if I think they were following a nice incentive gradient, but where I don’t think the thing they were doing was especially important.
2) strong social reward (where I want someone to be concretely rewarded for having done something hard, but I still don’t think it’s actually so important that it should rank highly in other people’s attention
3) “this is worth your time and attention”, where the signal is more about other people than the post/comment author.
(It’s possible you could split these into two entirely different schemas, but I think that’d result in unnecessary UI complexity without commensurate benefit)
strong social reward (where I want someone to be concretely rewarded for having done something hard, but I still don’t think it’s actually so important that it should rank highly in other people’s attention
If you don’t want to make it more prominent in other peoples’ attention, it would be a misuse of upvoting. Sounds like you just want reactions.
I do think a good site equilibrium would be “upvotes are *only* used to promote things to other people’s attention, reactions are used to give positive reinforcement” would be pretty good and better than what we have now.
It’s not quite right, because I also want people’s longterm site attention-allocational power to be able to take into account them executing good algorithms, in addition to actually outputting good content.
(Also, I’d prefer if people weighed in on Giant Social Drama fights via reactions rather than voting, but I’m not sure it’s possible to stop that. i.e ‘ah my opponent is so WRONG I want them to get less attention’ or vice versa)
I frequently feel a desire to do “medium” upvotes. Specifically, I want tiers of upvote for:
1) minor social approval (equivalent to smiling at a person when they do something I think should receive _some_ signal of reward, in particular if I think they were following a nice incentive gradient, but where I don’t think the thing they were doing was especially important.
2) strong social reward (where I want someone to be concretely rewarded for having done something hard, but I still don’t think it’s actually so important that it should rank highly in other people’s attention
3) “this is worth your time and attention”, where the signal is more about other people than the post/comment author.
(It’s possible you could split these into two entirely different schemas, but I think that’d result in unnecessary UI complexity without commensurate benefit)
If you don’t want to make it more prominent in other peoples’ attention, it would be a misuse of upvoting. Sounds like you just want reactions.
I do think a good site equilibrium would be “upvotes are *only* used to promote things to other people’s attention, reactions are used to give positive reinforcement” would be pretty good and better than what we have now.
It’s not quite right, because I also want people’s longterm site attention-allocational power to be able to take into account them executing good algorithms, in addition to actually outputting good content.
(Also, I’d prefer if people weighed in on Giant Social Drama fights via reactions rather than voting, but I’m not sure it’s possible to stop that. i.e ‘ah my opponent is so WRONG I want them to get less attention’ or vice versa)
Maybe a “give eigentrust” option distinct from voting, or, heck decouple those two actions completely.
I’m wanting to label these as (1) 😃 (smile); (2) 🍪 (cookie); (3) 🌟 (star)
Dunno if this is useful at all