There is some manipulation, especially if you consider mods who remove posts at their discretion, but it's far from a "vast majority."
I do have concerns related to some political subreddits, where there is evidence of bad actors attempting to influence the 2020 election. A subreddit (whose name escapes me) just had all of its moderators removed because it ended up being one person running three or four dozen alternate accounts.
What is the distinction between content manipulation and the game of karmawhoring? They seem more or less the same to me. I think I would consider SEO a form of content manipulation, for example.
It's my understanding that this is a common tactic used by people who are "karma farming" on an account. I can certainly understand how the karmawhore feels the upvotes are organic but I can also see how the owner of the original content would very much consider those upvotes manipulated.
And when a karmawhore lifts content and uses a title that insinuates it's their content ("My Dog Spike Doing Funny Thing"), I think the fuzzy line between organic and manipulated feels a little less fuzzy and lot more manipulated. Not just for the content owner, but for the content consumers as well. I think there's some expectation, at least some of the time, that an "organic" OP will interact with commenters and provide more detail in response to questions and it can be disappointing when you come across an interesting post only to realize that isn't the case because OP is just looking to maximize eyeballs & upvotes.
> I wouldn't consider it vote manipulation by my definition.
I suppose that's kind of my point. Your definition and perspective come from your experience on reddit as someone who posts that way. But there are other people who don't play the game of karmawhoring who might see things differently.
It seems to me it's a very blurry line that is difficult to define and largely a matter of perspective. The people who have mastered the system feel it's a matter of merit while the rest feel its a matter a manipulation. Reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
At least this is how it was years ago. Maybe marketing companies have this all automated anyway already and don't need people like that anymore.
I ignore the points system in HN too, but I think it's main function is to ban bad actors. So I don't understand on the other hand why someone would accumulate points unless they mean to later spend them on "bad actions".
I do believe for most people though it's just a sort of fame-seeking thing, for whatever reddit 'fame' is worth.
You yourself said the extension marks the cumulative amount of upvotes you've given a user. So, unless you yourself are engaged in this conspiracy to inflate GallowBoob's upvotes, then all this is evidence of is that GallowBoob seems uniquely skilled at finding and posting viral content.
I tend to upvote news articles and downvote reposts. I have definitely noticed that these power users recycle a lot of content.
He also submits posts dozens of times, deleting them if they don't gain traction quickly.
People don't dislike gallowboob and others because the content is necessarily bad... it's just inorganic and lame. I want to see content from other regular users, not power posters working for firms.
It basically compensates for first-mover advantage in forums.
Under such a system, if I think a post is valuable, I would then try to "protect" it and its author's account by downvoting it. Similarly, if I think a post is not valuable, I can help trigger its eventual deletion by upvoting it.
But to answer your question, yes, it is turning the karma system on its head for people near the top of the standings; the idea being that having "titans of karma" in the community becomes detrimental at some point.
I see a few problems though. This wouldn't work for just any karma-based site. For example, on StackOverflow where there are good "canonical" answers to tech problems, and these get heavily upvoted (because they are useful), having them removed and later rephrased (possibly incorrectly) by a new user would be detrimental. So any system where "good" posts are archived and referenced wouldn't benefit from this.
Even when there are no canonical/permanent answers, the thought that every "good" post you make takes you nearer to account deletion is not exactly enticing. Why not simply get rid of points and make all posts ephemeral, kind of like Instagram stories? What good do points even do in a system where your account and posts will get inevitably deleted?
Also, wouldn't mediocre/bad accounts stick longer than "good" accounts, making the whole system worse? I don't mean terrible or troll accounts -- I understand the point system would still be used to ban or hide them -- but mediocre accounts which post mediocre/bad posts. Wouldn't they dominate in this kind of system?
As long as the ride is good, people don't mind having to step down and queue again
Say it's arbitrarily 1000 points (or whatever makes sense, as long as it's low enough it can be earned after a medium term of active contributing, but high enough very new users will have to learn the ropes of the community in order to reach it). After you reach this, people can tell you're a good contributor, but you can't earn any more points. Anything you do from that point cannot be done solely to earn points, removing that part of the "game".