Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

984

On the one hand, I think it's cool that if I post something, I'm probably gonna get like 5 or 6 points. It's lame for it to sit at one, even if you expect people saw it and liked it, how would you know?

On the other hand, it's fairly obvious that you guys are going through /new and hitting the up button for everything. When 90% of the content has 5-6 points, having a post with 6 points is basically like having a post with 1.

I would suggest two things:
1. The people who upvote everything should scale it back slightly to maybe upvoting their top 2/3s of favorite posts.
2. The people who don't vote or rarely vote (I fall into this category) should up their game and try to vote more frequently.

If we did this then the vote ratios would look very different. Instead of a blanket of 6 points of every post, peaks and valleys would form based on what people like.

It would be a better experience.

Edit: P.S. I think having points less evenly distributed creates more of an incentive for people who vote very rarely to participate. Imagine if you liked a post and saw it was underrated? A non-voter might even put aside their apathy to give it a boost.

On the one hand, I think it's cool that if I post something, I'm probably gonna get like 5 or 6 points. It's lame for it to sit at one, even if you expect people saw it and liked it, how would you know? On the other hand, it's fairly obvious that you guys are going through /new and hitting the up button for everything. When 90% of the content has 5-6 points, having a post with 6 points is basically like having a post with 1. I would suggest two things: 1. The people who upvote everything should scale it back slightly to maybe upvoting their top 2/3s of favorite posts. 2. The people who don't vote or rarely vote (I fall into this category) should up their game and try to vote more frequently. If we did this then the vote ratios would look very different. Instead of a blanket of 6 points of every post, peaks and valleys would form based on what people like. It would be a better experience. Edit: P.S. I think having points less evenly distributed creates more of an incentive for people who vote very rarely to participate. Imagine if you liked a post and saw it was underrated? A non-voter might even put aside their apathy to give it a boost.

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

Up-voted, because I would like this post to rise to the top of the page.

[–] • 5 pts

I've already started doing this, mostly because the volume of posts has increased to where I'm not going to take the time to upvote everything.

[–] • 4 pts

I've actually cut back on my up-voting too, in order to focus more on pushing posts that I genuinely like up the chain.

[–] • 2 pts

Same here. Been cutting back for all the reasons stated, but still upvote things I see as good content we can use on Poal.

[–] • 2 pts

Yep.

I still try to upvote people who reply to my posts and comments regardless, unless they are way off base.

[–] • 3 pts

Upvoting makes my finger tired

[–] • 2 pts

Mine too. But idle fingers are the devil's playground.

[–] • 3 pts

I tried but I can't do it. I must turn the arrows green

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

OGs means... ?

[–] • 6 pts

Watermelon speak for first people on the scene.

[–] • 2 pts

Upvoted. Did I do it right? :)

[–] • 1 pt

Nice. You're one of the good ones, I can tell.

[–] • 1 pt

Nice of you to say, thanks. I agree with your premise; only upvote what you see as valuable so that the front page organically reflects what we users find meaningful. I am not one of those serial upvoters so I'm interested to see if users follow your suggestion.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

I targeted the serial upvoters because they are already doing the work. They would only have to slightly change the thing they're already doing.

Where as convincing people who don't vote at all to start doing so might be futile.

Edit: but maybe they would vote more if the stakes were higher. For example, if the votes were unevenly distributed and they saw a post they thought was good didn't have as many points as it deserved.

[–] • 2 pts

Am I glad I read it? They get my upvote. Yawner? No upvote. Flat earth levels of retardation? Downvote. (I consider swamping everything with shit nobody wants to see as spam, monetary profitable or not)

Similarly, when I click on something by tube.poal.co, I often hit the "watch on youtube" like so I can upvote it if I want.

[–] • 2 pts

I suspect there are just 5 or 6 people that upvote everything on /new. A really good post will get up into the teens or even past 20.

It could be argued that there are simply very few really good posts here. :)

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

That is a fair assessment. As it currently stands, those reeeeally good posts get an upvote from even the 14 or so people who will vote but are really stingy with their up button, plus the 6 who press up on everything.

But if those stingy people voted a little more, the reeeeally good post would still get proportionately more votes (because when is a moderately good post gonna get all 14 of them?), And the less interesting posts would remain low scoring.

As for the upvote everything crowd. They're already doing the work. If they were even slightly selective the result would be the same. They're always gonna upvote that really good post and the moderately good one, and maybe vote on some of the more boring ones as well but just not all of them.

[+] [deleted] • 1 pt