Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Ask your doctor if the Halfbakery is right for you.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                       

Voting 'Karma'

Your rating affects your votes.
  (+2, -13)(+2, -13)
(+2, -13)
  [vote for,
against]

A system to make voting different.

Each halfbaker has a certain karma, which is based on the amount of buns in their cupboard (eg how good their ideas are). NOTE: The karma can never be negative, it just goes to zero.

This karma affects how 'heavy' your votes on ideas are. If you have a karma of 10, your bun counts as 10 votes. If you have never posted, it would count as 1. If your karma is 0, your vote is 0.

It may need to be altered slightly, but basically, those with better ideas should (logically) be better at judging others.

Then again, who has ever called the Halkbakery logical?

Oh whatever.

dbmag9, Jul 26 2005

Consider the voting on Worth http://www.worth1000.com/
- the weight of your vote is a reflection of how "well" you vote, i.e., you vote in a bell curve that largely matches the consensus. [DrCurry, Jul 26 2005]

[link]






       This would result in drastic bunflation. [+++++++++++++]
daseva, Jul 26 2005
  

       And?
dbmag9, Jul 26 2005
  

       It's not necessary. I'd get alot of buns eventually, and then dish them out, and then get more dished to me for dishing them out, and the whole thing would get bent out of control. I'd have a million buns, and with those numbers fogging my mind from the actual purpose that is my existance on this site, I'd turn sour. We all would.
daseva, Jul 26 2005
  

       You been hanging out at worth1000.com [dbmag9]?
wagster, Jul 26 2005
  

       kuri5hin, slashdot, a hundred others use this.
waugsqueke, Jul 26 2005
  

       Voting is not that important.
DrCurry, Jul 26 2005
  

       Agreed, let's get rid of it.
waugsqueke, Jul 26 2005
  

       I _like_ being able to argue with [waugs] on an equal footing, despite being younger and better looking. Big negative karma for you, [db]. You're coming back as a fish.
moomintroll, Jul 26 2005
  

       And annotations...
DrCurry, Jul 27 2005
  

       instead of eliminating voting, it should be made completely random with no relationship to the actual number of positive or negative votes.   

       Alternatively, each idea could be rated on an arbitrary and unexplained scale. For instance, I would rate this idea as "three-quarter-inch ripped-Pine (on the Bercham scale)."
ato_de, Jul 27 2005
  

       The votes only serve to alter other baker's decisions when they view an idea, which is a bad thing.
pooduck, Jul 27 2005
  

       except for all the times when it's a good thing
hippo, Jul 27 2005
  

       Which is when?
waugsqueke, Jul 27 2005
  

       bad hair days?
po, Jul 27 2005
  

       Eurgh
pooduck, Jul 27 2005
  

       Well, the votes on this idea gave me a pretty good idea of its merits before I looked at it. I think voting is harmless.
hippo, Jul 27 2005
  

       Shouldn't you be totally neutral about an idea until you read it? I think having the votes at the top of the page influences any potential voters. You wouldn't have a running tally of each party's score during an election ('cos it would be slightly impossible but ignore that).
pooduck, Jul 27 2005
  

       In this context, I have frequently seen the collective voting on an idea turn from negative to positive after posting something pointing out positive aspects that previous annotators have overlooked. So voting does mean something, but not very much. I mostly use it to exclude ideas I don't want to see again from my default view.   

       [Getting looks of disbelief from various admins that I have ever posted anything positive.]
DrCurry, Jul 27 2005
  

       [pooduck] Your argument would also suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to see anyone else's annotations until you'd annotated. This would just be silly.
hippo, Jul 27 2005
  

       moom, I'll be the judge of that, post a picture; Younger perhaps, but never better looking. (And it's not "on an equal footing, it's "on equal footing. I think")
blissmiss, Jul 28 2005
  

       Well I always read the idea before the anno's anyway [hippo]. I dunno I would just rather make my mind up before reading what other people think.
pooduck, Jul 28 2005
  

       I'm proud of my fish. I wouldn't like to be penalised for them.
etherman, Jul 28 2005
  

       bliss, I think that both footing constructions are valid, though the an-inclusive one is perhaps more peculiar to the UK.   

       I was under the impression that karmic or other weightings on votes was a complexity brought about by increasingly large numbers of users on any one site, in an effort to stratify users, to eliminate mob behaviours. Though the halfbakery is getting larger, I don't think that it is anywhere near large enough to require this sort of slashdotty karmamaths that this will involve.
calum, Aug 01 2005
  

       I always forget that UK slant. Thanks, C.
blissmiss, Aug 01 2005
  

       I thought this idea was going to alter my voting powers for all elections, not just 1/2b voting. Dang! I was looking forward to the Karma factor eliminating greedy politicians come election day. I guess that will remain a WIBNI.   

       Frankly, I usually don't vote every time I read an idea, and I don't check out the voting until after I have read the idea. Only ideas I strongly agree or disagree with end up getting a bun or bone, so if I was to vote on this, I'd serve fish. Sorry.
Canuck, Aug 01 2005
  

       If 'ya don't like the voting, just hit the recent button to the left and you won't see it when you're going to the ideas.
goober, Aug 01 2005
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle