If a post gets downvoted, it could be a geinuenly awful post. But another post that gets downvoted, but is actually empiracially scientifically true, then it is treated equivolent as the other even though they are the same.

I don’t think this is the answer but one idea is to add points to people, or products, who are verified to be awesome. So that would be a scientist or compassionate politician gets more votes or a healthy product gets a subsidy.

    • iii@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      It’s a methodology for achieving what you describe, without manually having to assign social scores to each person.

      • quacky@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        voting behaviour

        can you define this? this seems like almost a semantic nightmare in practice. Like tagging all the the topics they up/downvote

        • iii@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 hours ago

          Like tagging all the the topics they up/downvote

          That’s what happens: every post one up or downvotes is public. You can just download that data.

            • iii@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              You don’t need to scrape. The votes made on one instance need to be propagated to the others. So the information “person X up/downvoted post Y” is openly transmitted as part of the defederation protocol.

              • quacky@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

                The short answers are a bit infuriating for me. I am tempted to ask more questions, but this is becoming an unfun game for me. I guess one could see the votes, but the categorizing the types of topics per user and/or cluster of users sounds like a difficult, combinatorically complex job.

                • iii@mander.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 hours ago

                  but the categorizing the types of topics per user and/or cluster of users sounds like a difficult, combinatorically complex job.

                  Ah ok, now I see the confusion. I thought you were enquiring how to gather the data.

                  There’s well known clustering algorithms for that. It’s a long time known and solved problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_analysis

                  These techniques have the benefit that you don’t have to inject your own biases into the score assignment, you can just let the data speak for itself.

                  • quacky@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    13 hours ago

                    I respect that you’re learned and an expert on this topic. I am getting frustrated how the comments are getting cut off prematurely each time. It keeps begging the question. I’m at a point like “ok great so just program the thing” because anything short of that feels like a waste of time