It’s been a while so I could be mis remembering but basically once you’d been an active member long enough every once in a while you would be prompted to review moderation and upvotes (upvotes were done by category so +1 funny was different to +1 insightful), beyond that I’m not sure but I assume if you got too many of your votes rejected the weight of your votes was probably reduced or even completely ignored.
I think social media likely does this on an individual basis (so if you downvotes something someone else upvotes the fact you are anti-polarised against them is likely weighing votes going forward), but I think the weights applied globally so knowing you could be effectively judged irrelevant if you did too many stupid votes also kept people honest in how they voted (or was meant to anyway).
It’s a shame nobody is really trying anything than personalized algorithms these days, if everyone has a unique experience it doesn’t build an online community the way that websites used to IMO (even if some of the communities were extremely toxic)
It’s really a shame that reddit has no interest in being good, because there are multiple ways you could address this:
Slashdot style moderation review is my favorite
having resources elect their mods could also prevent these grabs and server as a way to handle obvious abuse
But they seem more interested in getting ai to replace mods & be worse at it.
How does moderation review work on Slashdot?
It’s been a while so I could be mis remembering but basically once you’d been an active member long enough every once in a while you would be prompted to review moderation and upvotes (upvotes were done by category so +1 funny was different to +1 insightful), beyond that I’m not sure but I assume if you got too many of your votes rejected the weight of your votes was probably reduced or even completely ignored.
I think social media likely does this on an individual basis (so if you downvotes something someone else upvotes the fact you are anti-polarised against them is likely weighing votes going forward), but I think the weights applied globally so knowing you could be effectively judged irrelevant if you did too many stupid votes also kept people honest in how they voted (or was meant to anyway).
It’s a shame nobody is really trying anything than personalized algorithms these days, if everyone has a unique experience it doesn’t build an online community the way that websites used to IMO (even if some of the communities were extremely toxic)