I don’t see how. Unless you mean people rationing their votes are less likely to scroll as far down?
But yeah this place is going to be desolate without pugjesus, and I wonder how many more people are gonna leave once users rationing votes results in content receiving less engagement.
Based on the stats shown in Rimu’s post, the monthly average vote count of the top 5000 of prolific voters was 1142, and among the top 147 prolific voters, their average monthly was 6868.
With a 240 daily limit, that comes out to 7200 votes per month, which is already above the average of the most prolific voters.
Those 147 top voters may be effected if they only voted sporadically throughout the month (so they vote like, 500 one day and 700 another, but with some rest days of no voting in-between), and those posting above that average who definitely would be effected appear to only total about 60 people.
So for 99% of the userbase, they would not need to consider rationing votes at all.
Ok, so in the announcement post they talk about mostly technical reasons for this. But from the linked post it does in fact sound like the aim is to throttle most active members because they have too much influence?
This is what rubbed me the wrong way and I just couldn’t figure out why. We all have one upvote to give, some people just give it way more of them - so in comes the great equalizer in the form of the daily quota.
I hope you pardon my exagerated metaphor, but this is like limiting free speech for journalists, because they excercise the right of free speech way more than others.
It’s “just” votes so I’m hesitant to call this censorship but… this does feel like a first step. Will there be daily post quotas too because some people post more than others?
I don’t see how. Unless you mean people rationing their votes are less likely to scroll as far down?
But yeah this place is going to be desolate without pugjesus, and I wonder how many more people are gonna leave once users rationing votes results in content receiving less engagement.
Overall, just a terrible decision in my opinion
Based on the stats shown in Rimu’s post, the monthly average vote count of the top 5000 of prolific voters was 1142, and among the top 147 prolific voters, their average monthly was 6868.
With a 240 daily limit, that comes out to 7200 votes per month, which is already above the average of the most prolific voters.
Those 147 top voters may be effected if they only voted sporadically throughout the month (so they vote like, 500 one day and 700 another, but with some rest days of no voting in-between), and those posting above that average who definitely would be effected appear to only total about 60 people.
So for 99% of the userbase, they would not need to consider rationing votes at all.
Ok, so in the announcement post they talk about mostly technical reasons for this. But from the linked post it does in fact sound like the aim is to throttle most active members because they have too much influence?
This is what rubbed me the wrong way and I just couldn’t figure out why. We all have one upvote to give, some people just give it way more of them - so in comes the great equalizer in the form of the daily quota.
I hope you pardon my exagerated metaphor, but this is like limiting free speech for journalists, because they excercise the right of free speech way more than others.
It’s “just” votes so I’m hesitant to call this censorship but… this does feel like a first step. Will there be daily post quotas too because some people post more than others?