| >What is more likely: that this post was voted to the top despite lack of support in the thread, or that a circle of upvoters voted it up? You're assuming those are the only two credible possibilities. This thread could also be at the top because of the cumulative lack of upvotes, or the weight of downvotes (which have been biased to count more compared to upvotes), in other threads. Or because of the effect of upvotes on individual posts, or its relative length compared to the others. I think it's too complex and opaque a system to read so definitively, particularly given the effort put into it by the staff to prevent exactly the sort of gaming you're talking about. Although, yes, given those two scenarios specifically, the 'circle of upvoters' is the more plausible. >If they want to convince people of their point of view, then why can't they do it legitimately? That's the problem - what you're calling out as evidence of illegitimate actions could just as well be legitimate. Your evidence is that people apparently agree with and voted up yeahyeah, and that yeahyeah's account seemed insufficiently 'real'. Have you taken into account the possibility that people might actually agree with the post? >Doing both is much more effective. Otherwise they control the first posts, they make a sense of a false consensus in their favour, and these things really can influence how people think. Don't believe me? Research it yourself. But I have a hard time believing that people are that malleable, or that such a simple tactic could be so effective. Although there is perhaps a good argument to be made against karma-based systems being in any way meritocratic, 'consensus' on Hacker News doesn't really count for much. |