Rationale: Force people to choose the best content, rather than throwing everything they find at the wall and seeing what sticks.
I imagine 95% or more of users wouldn’t notice any change.
Do you see any example of abuse, or just @pushcx jealousy? ;) The rating system should be naturally voting up liked stories, not voting meh stories, and flagging rule violating stories.
Yeah, I really appreciate what @pushcx has done for the site.
I, for one, am looking forward to the day when pushcx has the top 10 stories all at once.
[Comment removed by author]
I’m pretty sure that @calvin’s tongue was planted firmly in his cheek while typing that.
You can tell because of the winky emoticon.
I think the highest volume contributor is probably @pushcx, and this would harm that dude’s output. So no way. That guy’s posts are usually in the top decile of quality.
What problem are you attempting solve with this proposal? I haven’t noticed a glut of low quality stories from individuals that seem to be posting everything they read. But maybe I’m just not reading at the right time to notice it?
For the record, I don’t support the proposal, but let me make an argument on its behalf as best I can.
Problem: having many stories posted by few users is a unhealthy for our community, lowers involvement and increases risk. It lowers involvement because new users never really get a chance to post an interested tidbit because they find it already posted, this makes them feel unneeded and not a useful part of the community. This increases dependency on super-posters, which increases risk if they suddenly go missing (like a wedding and vacation, just to pick an entirely random example).
Solution: the above proposal will give others a chance to get involved and stop the tyranny of the super-posters!
Now, the problem is the 90-9-1 rule basically. 1% of the people create/post the content, 9% will comment/edit it and the other 90% of people consume it with no interaction. This means super-posters are really required for a lot of communities to function at all, they enable both the 9% and the 90%.
I don’t see any need for this.
This seems a bit arbitrary. Any argument for 3 story submissions would work just as well for 2 or 4 or 5, making the argument for the limit of 3 stories a bit weak. Beyond that, is the current system not adequately providing interesting content? Personally, I’ve been interested and felt reasonably pleased with the quality of at least 75% of the recently popular content here.
“Any argument for 3 story submissions would work just as well for 2 or 4 or 5”
And here, folks, is a jee-NU-yne slippery slope argument out in the wild. ;-)
Not actually slippery slope, I would say. I don’t extend to other orders of magnitude, or use the reasoning to say that no limit should be placed because any limit would be arbitrary. Of course any limit would be arbitrary. My intended point was more “why not something higher?” (although communicated poorly, I admit).
LOL. Reading your sentence led me to musings on how we settle on values for anything, especially on threshold values. How do we decide middle-class? How do we decide tax bracket cutoffs? Setting thresholds/cut-offs based on a statistical parameter (e.g top 1%,3x standard deviation) sounds more sophisticated but at the core, we still have some arbitrary number!
On a related note: I’m surprised by how often I see really good articles that have no up-votes. These tend to be more technical.
I’ve always assumed this comes from the same place as bikeshedding – I don’t have a solid grasp on graph isomorphism, or quasipolynomial time, so that post isn’t for me.
but I sure as hell can hold court on things tagged culture or meta. ;-)
Absolutely. We like to imagine that these sorts of cutoffs are principled, but often they are little more than a convenient or pleasing value in the eyes of the system organizers. This has some serious implications in public policy, particularly when cutoffs don’t match, and people can find themselves underserved due to little more than the capriciousness of the system.
I really don’t see how this would help the site at all, in fact, I think that it would probably harm it.
So I’m sure I understand the context of this post: are there any other users who regularly submit more than 3 stories per day, or even have submitted >3/day more than once in the last year? Can anyone name another user meeting these criteria off the top of their head?
EDIT: Maybe two hours ago I finished a long-ass plane flight and took 11.5 hours of time zone change, so I am going to stay out of this thread for at least a day or two as I am pretty prone to saying dumb things while I wrench my body back on schedule.
I don’t think the site sees enough content. I think we should institute weekly submission requirements, perhaps 3 per week.
Against. Seems not needed. Regarding @pushcx, he and I have had disagreements (resolved, I believe) in the past but his submissions are of very high quality and it would be a huge loss not to have them.
This proposal seems to (a) solve a problem we don’t have and (b) to make us more like Hacker News. Two strong reasons to oppose it.
Not that I am for it, but I suppose it could be implemented the other way around: A new option called: “Limit number of stories I see from a single poster to X”.
Or the ranking algorithm could be modified to avoid having so many stories from a single poster show up on the front page.
I’m in favor of limiting posting, but I’m not sure if 3 is the magic number. Something between 3-7 sounds right to me.
Maybe we could set a sliding threshold per user based on the rate of said user’s submissions, and the rate of global submissions? Or maybe that’s unecessarily complicated…