I think the grumps might just upvote something random to get points to use against something they don't like. The result of upvoting something that's at 10 points is weaker than downvoting something at 1 point. Maybe take current score into account.
Or possibly just put a limit on the number of downvotes you can do per day/week. We don't need nearly as many downvote points as upvote points to get good results. Viewing and not upvoting something is like half a downvote anyway. Maybe if you reply when past your limit you can then also downvote if you want.
> Viewing and not upvoting something is like half a downvote anyway.
This statement depends a lot on your habits. I open up 5-10 links at a time and then read through them all. I rarely remember to go back and upvote, and I reserve that for _really_ good articles, anyway. And of course you can't say anything about comments, since there's no telling whether somebody even reads all the comments when he opens a page with comments on it.
Yes, somebody can just upvote 10 random things to get 10 negative 'credits.'
How are they going to use all 10 on one article? Both arrows disappear after the first vote. And, the old articles can't be voted down any more. Finally, if the person decides to wait for somebody to post 9 more comments over the next 2 weeks or however frequently the user posts (so they can downvote them) the comment will still be current and the rest of the YC community will vote up the comment back to a positive number. It seems like a good solution to me.
Comments
I think the grumps might just upvote something random to get points to use against something they don't like. The result of upvoting something that's at 10 points is weaker than downvoting something at 1 point. Maybe take current score into account.
Or possibly just put a limit on the number of downvotes you can do per day/week. We don't need nearly as many downvote points as upvote points to get good results. Viewing and not upvoting something is like half a downvote anyway. Maybe if you reply when past your limit you can then also downvote if you want.
> Viewing and not upvoting something is like half a downvote anyway.
This statement depends a lot on your habits. I open up 5-10 links at a time and then read through them all. I rarely remember to go back and upvote, and I reserve that for _really_ good articles, anyway. And of course you can't say anything about comments, since there's no telling whether somebody even reads all the comments when he opens a page with comments on it.
Yes, somebody can just upvote 10 random things to get 10 negative 'credits.'
How are they going to use all 10 on one article? Both arrows disappear after the first vote. And, the old articles can't be voted down any more. Finally, if the person decides to wait for somebody to post 9 more comments over the next 2 weeks or however frequently the user posts (so they can downvote them) the comment will still be current and the rest of the YC community will vote up the comment back to a positive number. It seems like a good solution to me.