The Reddit Front Page Is Not a Meritocracy
71–80 of 151 posts
Re: The Reddit Front Page Is Not a Meritocracy
#72Nice job. I guess the practical takeaway is, if you don't want to look at funny pictures and animal GIFs, start on page 2.
Re: The Reddit Front Page Is Not a Meritocracy
#73Nice job. I guess the practical takeaway is, if you don't want to look at funny pictures and animal GIFs, start on page 2.
Re: The Reddit Front Page Is Not a Meritocracy
#74One thing I'm interested in knowing is whether Reddit manipulates the votes on its own submissions. See, for example, r/blog: http://www.reddit.com/r/blog/new/ Every submission made there went to the frontpage. What are the chances? I mean, it's hard to believe that mainstream Redditors at this point are so interested in Reddit news that they keep sending every Reddit announcement to the top. What's more likely, to m…
> it's hard to believe that mainstream Redditors at this point are so interested in Reddit news that they keep sending every Reddit announcement to the top. "Mainstream Redditors" don't decide what is on the homepage because they don't vote. Only about 20% of redditors vote, and only about 20% of voters comment [1]. If you still find it hard to believe, just read the 900+ comments written in less than a day on their…
Are you familiar with the 90/9/1 rule of thumb? That for any site with user-generated content (message boards, social networks, etc.), only 10% of people contribute to the discussion and only 10% of those people start new conversations?
At first, I read your comment about "20% of 20%" and thought "wow, that would be 80/16/4, that's incredible".
But this adds voting into the middle of the equation. So perhaps the 80/20 rule continues, and we can estimate that 20% of voters comment, and 20% of commenters post original content. That would make it more like 80 (reading only)/16 (voting)/3.2 (commenting)/0.8 (posting original content). Which might be considered (with rounding) 80/19/1. The original content contribution is roughly the same, but the voting system seems to increasing the middle-ground of engagement.
Double sign-ups by adding a voting feature?
Re: The Reddit Front Page Is Not a Meritocracy
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really buy that... the only liberal views I can think of that are popular in the aggregate on reddit are about the war on drugs and sometimes socialized medicine. In general, reddit is pretty hostile towards women, skeptical of feminism, overtly racist, and pro-military. I guess I would characterize it more as libertarianism strongly centered on the perspectives of middle class, white men. Edit: I guess "I do…
I'm not sure how being skeptical of feminism is an inherently non-liberal view. I'd say it depends on whether the feminism in question is oriented around civil rights, or around some form of critical gender theory. "Feminism" alone is not descriptive enough to make any judgment over. Pro-military? How? I haven't visited it in a while, but a common sentiment on AskReddit was a total disillusionment with the chauvinist…
As for the military, I guess that one is more debatable. I agree that the Bush-era "support the troops" jingoism isn't around much, but I used to see a lot posts where it's implicit. Things like hugely popular photos of special ops soldiers followed by adoring comments of how "badass" they are.
Re: The Reddit Front Page Is Not a Meritocracy
#76For both Reddit and HN, articles/posts live or die based on popularity, not meritocracy nor karma.
Re: The Reddit Front Page Is Not a Meritocracy
#77>Much to my surprise, I found out that reddit's front pages are not a pure "meritocracy" based on votes, but that rankings depend heavily on subreddits. Is this really a surprise? If just went by upvotes alone, a sub with 1M subscribers will always dominate a sub with 500k. You need to factor in the that context.
Re: The Reddit Front Page Is Not a Meritocracy
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only about 20% of redditors vote, and only about 20% of voters comment [1]. That doesn't really ring true. If you make a post with a question in the title, you'll often get 5+ answers before a single person votes. Even downvotes. Maybe it's more accurate to say "Of those people who don't hang out in the new submissions queue, only about 20% of the voters comment." But, really, Reddit could do anything it wants intern…
> They already compress the votes so that it only looks like there are ~10,000 votes maximum, when in fact hundreds of thousands of people have probably voted on certain posts Again I'm out of the loop by several years here. But to my knowledge, no that's not true. There are just fewer voters than you think there are.
https://www.reddit.com/comments/z1c9z Obama's AMA. According to the sidebar, (upvotes - downvotes) = 14,700, with upvotes/(upvotes+downvotes) = 94%. Reddit recently changed their algorithms so that the 94% figure is very accurate. That means 14,700/0.94 ~= 15,600 people voted, according to the sidebar.
Here are Reddit's traffic stats for the Obama AMA: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z3msa/traffic_stats_f...
The AMA brought in an extra two million uniques over two days. Also, it was one of the most legendary and historic events thus far on the internet, because it was the first time a sitting US president directly engaged with the public on a social media website.
Reddit has millions of subscribers. They can't really obfuscate the subscriber counts, because the subscriber count for each subreddit is visible every day. If it suddenly slowed down, people would notice. And the info needs to be available to moderators in order to manage their subreddit. Therefore, when /r/funny says it has 7 million subscribers, we can be reasonably certain there are at least 7 million Reddit accounts, many of which are active.
So, assuming there are only about a million active Redditors (there are probably more), and that a large number of those Redditors visit http://www.reddit.com/r/all on a regular basis, and considering that the Obama AMA was one of the most significant events in Reddit history (and indeed all internet history), and considering that over three million people viewed the AMA, it seems hard to believe that only 15,000 people voted on it.
It's possible. Statistics are one of the most counter-intuitive fields. Behaviors emerge at scale which aren't seen in the initial stages. Maybe it's possible people saw that 5,000 people had already upvoted the AMA, and so were less likely to upvote it themselves. But given the nature of politics and the significant historical status of the event, could it be true that the fate of the AMA was influenced by just a few thousand people?
Another observation: Reddit has had steady upward growth, but I remember that as of a few years ago the upvote counts were regularly reaching 3k. That number hasn't gone up too much in the meantime: https://www.reddit.com/r/all/
... but Reddit's traffic seems to have doubled since the start of 2013: http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=reddit
If the number of voters could be calculated as a simple percentage of total active Reddit accounts, and Reddit's traffic has doubled, then why haven't the vote counts in /r/all also doubled?
That said, I'm not entirely convinced of my position. Reality is weird, and I'm often wrong. All I'm saying is that if it's true that only 15,000 people voted on Obama's AMA, and that a submission on /r/all regularly receives only ~5k votes out of a million active redditors who see it, then I'm surprised.
EDIT: The more I think about it, the more I think I'm mistaken. If it were true that Reddit compresses the vote counters for submissions, then they'd also have to do it for comments, because otherwise the top comment would regularly display a count that's way higher than the submission. They'd also have to compress the added comment karma, etc. This is where it moves from "plausible" to "the simplest explanation is that very few people vote."
Huh. Interesting.
Re: The Reddit Front Page Is Not a Meritocracy
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit has a default frontpage for people who don't have accounts. I lurked for years and was just fine without actually creating an account. :)
Isn't the default page mostly cat pictures and jokes? I tried viewing it logged out one time and I couldn't figure out who would like that?
no cat pictures, 2 gifs of dogs being cute
I check r/all because it's the breadth focused zeitgeist of the internet. Whether the comments are right or wrong doesn't matter. Once you can fix a point on popular sentiment you can interpret how it will ripple through more "prestigious" forums.