|
|
|
|
|
|
by cm
4992 days ago
|
|
|
I work with robertjmoore. I, along with a few other colleagues at our small office, voted for his past three blog posts. Many of those votes probably came from our single office IP address. Many were probably also placed after clicking a direct link to the HN posting. There couldn't have been more than about 10 votes like this, because we don't have many employees. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't vote for many HN posts besides those written by authors I know. Is this the behavior that HN's vote ring detector is trying to discourage? I understand that these things are a slippery slope - but if so, it's too bad, because quality content like robertjmoore's last three posts is getting lost, and I would imagine that other authors at small companies like ours are unwittingly falling into the same trap. If there have been other posts explaining the DOs and DONTs of the HN vote ring detector, I apologize in advance for not having read them. |
|
|
>Is this the behavior that HN's vote ring detector is trying to discourage?
I hope so. It's great and all that you have 10 people to vote up an article as soon as its posted... but I don't. Shouldn't the content be voted up based on its own merits vs. how many people you know? An instant 10 votes is a huge unfair advantage.
> if so, it's too bad, because quality content like robertjmoore's last three posts is getting lost
If the problem is the content getting "lost" because you guys are voting up the articles... then stop doing that. If the content is vote-worthy it will get votes.
Additional comment: sure, I get that this wasn't clear to you guys... but come on. On some level you can see how this would be unfair- right?