Hacker News Reader

Comment by silisili | Hacker News Reader

It's neat but seems ephemeral. Maybe that's the point.

I had a not similar but related idea, basically borne from my hatred of Twitter. Basically, you'd only be able to make a comment if you have a credit. Credits would be time based, probably 1 or 2 a day. The only other way to get credits is if the person you replied to likes your comment. Basically, the idea being to quit getting people being so controversial and argumentative.

Edit:

I kept replying below describing some vision that doesn't exist, which I feel is rude to the OP and Minus, so I'll not reply further. As I have little intention in building anything at the moment, feel free to take anything you like from it, Minus et al.

View on HN

I like that time-based mechanism much better. The karma/engagement-based stuff would just let popular people post more :)

I think this is still bad, because it heavily encourages people to post stuff that others will respond to, which isn't necessarily what's honest, authentic, valuable, etc.

Posts, as they are not a response to anything, in my head wouldn't use a credit unless the post tags someone.

So if you want to write mean things, do so in your own posts without bothering others' discussions.

Well, not more. Sending a comment takes you down to zero, you're done. Unless that person likes your comment. Popular posts or number of likes per comment would be irrelevant. The idea I guess is to allow and even encourage a friendly back and forth without burning all your credits.

Example. A -I released this tool!

B - Wow nice how long did that take

A - Thanks, 6 months.

At this point, the conversation is done unless both like each other's comment, which in such an exchange would be encouraged.

If C comes along and says 'this tool sucks', even if 50 people like it, if A doesn't, C is done commenting for the day.

In fairness, I haven't really thought the whole thing out in detail, just some rough ideas. I appreciate pointing out challenges and dislikes with it though.

Very interesting idea. C can still come back and comment the next day/after a fixed time frame. I think it provides a much needed balance between lack of interaction and over interaction. I guess it can prevent bickering and unnecessary arguments.

Though if anyone wanted to set up an information farm, by creating a bunch of accounts, where they post and like each other, acting like different individuals, it could still create engagement with other innocent people who could eventually become biased, hateful and misinformed.

What if B, for whatever reason, doesn't like A's reply? So A is out of comments for the day, and can't respond to anyone else who replies to them.

B might have just logged off, or maybe their question was bait to intentionally silence A. Either way, A is probably annoyed with B.

Unfortunately this doesn’t help with flame wars where people can go over to a sub thread they get agreement on to harvest credits to then brigade the ones they disagree with.

This doesn't work in the described way. Commenting takes you to zero, only one person could agree to take you back to 1.

So going to a subgroup of your likeminded people would do nothing. You can comment 'like me pls', which would take you from one credit to 0. The responder liking it would take credit back to 1, which is where it was initially. So, nothing gained.

However, one would have to solve the multiple account problem, which every site has to deal with.

Token bucket! But perhaps a microtransaction system would also fit neatly in your scenario. >:)

I thought about that, but still unsure. Want to be an asshat? Pay a dollar and get another credit.

That won't stop organizations with lots of money unless the cost for more credits raises exponentially. Everyone will have to stop when millions and billions get into play.

Have a look at hubski.com, it uses a similar method.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com