Escher Posted:

Reverse that – it has a 1.5% chance of not surviving the first few votes.

I’d comment that the sample size is a little off – most thread titles and typical posts get in right now with a margin of 15 positive votes out of maybe 100 cast, making it a little more likely that a run of downvoters would kill something decent-but-not-great.

I like the idea of a recycling bin; the reduction of total submissions has made it less horrible to sort through everything everyone has submitted.

Alright, let’s run this.

60 positive votes

45 negative votes

p(negative) = 42.86% = 0.4286

p(0 positive votes) = 0.00619887673

p(1) = 0.00910870534

p(2) = 0.00780759182

p(3) = 0.00509892044

p(4) = 0.00280965604

sum = 0.0310237504 = 3.1% of submissions are voted down very quickly.

my_name_is_pearl Posted:

As I see it, 2 big things seem to matter:

1. The forums end up with great content

2. Everyone gets to flex their creative muscle

The current system definitely achieves both of these.

I agree that the current system achieves both of these. With all due respect, however, I disagree that these are what matter; if it’s relatively simple to improve the current system, why not improve it? Lowering the (-5) to (-10), or even just to (-6), would dramatically increase the odds that threads are given their due consideration. Furthermore, by increasing the longevity of forumbuildr ideas, the “scoop” problem is largely alleviated.

Of course, I recognize that it is known only to the crotch zombies to decide what’s “relatively simple” to implement.