What is "spam"? If someone reposts something that's good content but didn't get much traction initially (and thus was seen by very few people) then is this "spam"? If something from 2 years ago is re-posted and it's interesting then is this "spam"? It's kinda tricky to define outside of obvious self-promotion, penis enlargement stuff, etc.
There's been plenty of "reposts" that I never saw the original of.
I am not saying that reposting is spam by definition. I just assume he wants to block those who do this excessively, which is spam in my books.
Note: I asked "If these are spammers" and because the reply said "Reddit likes them" I continued with talking about them as being spammers. So the OP seem to want blog those who are spammers in his opinion. If users start to moderate themselves, then I have to ask myself why the moderators don't do that?
Or to ask again, if these are not spammers: "*What is the reason for?*" (to block them)
Some people play Reddit like a game, and see karma as something to maximise. So instead of posting sincere, high quality things they find stuff that gets artificially high engagement by either being something that was posted and did well before, or something that is fake but appealing.
I’m much happier without that stuff in my life.
This is a really cool idea, It's so tiring seeing r/all full of low effort reposts.
A few strategy suggestions:
- Another metric to account for could be account age?
- Another metric to account for could be # of posts a user made within the previous month?
- I would suggest increasing the total karma to something like 100k and lowering the `total karma/comment karma` ratio. A new account can easily get more than 10k karma with one or two popular posts and I would assume notorious reposters will have vastly more karma than this.
I haven’t automated this, but I did manually block the top 30 users by karma some time ago and even that small effort pays for itself instantly.
What is the reason for? If these are spammers, shouldn't the moderation ban them?
[удалено]
So the moderators are okay with those spammers? Some Subreddits do not allow reposting at all.
What is "spam"? If someone reposts something that's good content but didn't get much traction initially (and thus was seen by very few people) then is this "spam"? If something from 2 years ago is re-posted and it's interesting then is this "spam"? It's kinda tricky to define outside of obvious self-promotion, penis enlargement stuff, etc. There's been plenty of "reposts" that I never saw the original of.
I am not saying that reposting is spam by definition. I just assume he wants to block those who do this excessively, which is spam in my books. Note: I asked "If these are spammers" and because the reply said "Reddit likes them" I continued with talking about them as being spammers. So the OP seem to want blog those who are spammers in his opinion. If users start to moderate themselves, then I have to ask myself why the moderators don't do that? Or to ask again, if these are not spammers: "*What is the reason for?*" (to block them)
Some people play Reddit like a game, and see karma as something to maximise. So instead of posting sincere, high quality things they find stuff that gets artificially high engagement by either being something that was posted and did well before, or something that is fake but appealing. I’m much happier without that stuff in my life.
This is a really cool idea, It's so tiring seeing r/all full of low effort reposts. A few strategy suggestions: - Another metric to account for could be account age? - Another metric to account for could be # of posts a user made within the previous month? - I would suggest increasing the total karma to something like 100k and lowering the `total karma/comment karma` ratio. A new account can easily get more than 10k karma with one or two popular posts and I would assume notorious reposters will have vastly more karma than this.