No they wouldn't, not unless you kept the "must have 50 posts" criterion a secret from everyone. And that's just shady. The system needs to be open, we need to know how it works.Human wrote:Depends on what the gain is. In the example I gave, group X would be unaware if their vote was taken or not in the first scenario.
On the other hand, if this criterion was known, we would probably see a massive flood of spam posts from people who just want to vote. That's another reason why this idea just won't work.
I don't think we even need to do that; we can probably infer a disparity based on likely personality traits of those who post often vs. those who don't (such as extrovertedness, for one example).Correct. This hypothesis needs to be tested.
I strongly disagree here - I think any solution that costs us even one honest vote is too high a cost. A utilitarian approach is not the answer, especially since solutions have already been proposed that don't cost any honest votes.And the more dishonest votes you have, the less accurate the results. The benifit has to be weighed against the costs. If we can eliminate 90% of the dishonest votes costing us 20% of the honest votes, it might be worthwhile.






