I treat social media as pure discussion platform to advance understanding or to know new stuff.
There had been something on my mind lately which I wanted to discuss as a way to improve the upvotes relevance to the quality of the post and the amount of discussion.
Let’s apply quality control on upvotes, so any post can get only 20 upvotes till it gets a specific amount of comments then the limit could be pumped up to 40 upvotes till it gets more comments, etc…
Why I am bringing this up, you might ask? The linked post by me is the peek proof of my point.
It’s pretty clear no one read the linked article and despite that, the post is the top post in the technology community. There is no comments discussing directly the story and from the face of it, There does not seem to be any indicator that any one benefited from this.
I skimmed over the story and shared it in the hopes to basically learn new stuff, get relevant recommendations or basically read some direct discussions.
In any way, I think my described system to handle upvotes would highly improve Lemmy, taking into consideration that numbers used are only for demonstration and the used numbers will need to be figured out separately.
Should this system be implemented into Lemmy?
I don’t see how that post would be a good example to advocate for the approach. It has 23 comments, quite average compared to other posts. So it’d still end up with a similar ranking…
A lot of comments came after the high amount of upvotes.
In simpler terms, upvotes boosted the comments which allowed the comments to keep getting more irrelevant.
What I am arguing for here in general is a quality control for votes, which is desperately needed here on Lemmy.
As of now, any quality control system would work better than no quality control system at all.
deleted by creator