= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taw comments on On Less Wrong traffic and new users -- and how you can help - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (30)
I don't know their current algorithm but last time I checked StumbleUpon used to divide all votes by number of urls user submitted from a particular domain, so what you're suggesting in #1 has zero value - upvoting 100 links from lesswrong or 1 gives identical result (or even less if thet have spam detection on top of that).
If you're trying to outpaperclip SEO-paperclippers you'll need a lot better than that.
I'm not suggesting people go through and upvote every Less Wrong article; they can distribute their new votes however they want. So if that algorithm is correct, the impact would be for new people that sign up for Stumble Upon to sometimes vote for LW, or people that have dormant SU accounts that can log in and vote for Less Wrong. This is a bit different from an organized ring of people stumbling low quality content -- my intention is to create a culture of people on Less Wrong stumbling articles that they like.
Where did you get info about that algorithm? The last time I was actively stumbling things, for my old biology/genetics blog, it didn't seem to work that way. That algorithm doesn't quite make sense to me, as it implies that sites will start getting less and less traffic as they write more blog posts -- and with that old blog, stumbling new articles as they came up seemed to make a difference.