Has anyone yet mentioned or reported that for the last couple days, the "karma for last 30 days" is showing zero for everyone? And that we no longer can see the top contributors for the last 30 days either?

Do we have an explanation or estimation for a bugfix on this?

New to LessWrong?

New Comment
179 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 7:32 PM
Some comments are truncated due to high volume. (⌘F to expand all)Change truncation settings
[-][anonymous]12y270

I'm now getting notices when people reply to my articles in the comment section. These replies show up in my inbox. I'm not sure this is a new feature, but I know this didn't use to happen for me.

So cool!

3NancyLebovitz12y
Definitely good news! That's something I've been wanting for a long time.

Last 30 days karma is disabled for now because it was interacting weirdly with a new feature; TrikeApps is working on the fix.

6matt12y
Sorry people - I should have posted when we did this. Leaving y'all in the dark was unkind.
4DanArmak12y
I notice it's enabled again. Thanks to TrikeApps!

Zero for me too, and others reported the same on the IRC channel. I think the site got an upgrade that zapped some state. More interesting than the local karma display breakage, there now seems to be a 5 karma point troll feeding fee whenever you want to reply to a comment that has been downvoted to -3 or below.

[-][anonymous]12y210

More interesting than the local karma display breakage, there now seems to be a 5 karma point troll feeding fee whenever you want to reply to a comment that has been downvoted to -3 or below.

This will lead to more complaining from those who are frustrated at being down voted without explanation

Also I wonder if you take the 5 karma hit if you reply to your own under -3 karma post.

This will lead to more complaining from those who are frustrated at being down voted without explanation

And from people who think they have attracted a stalker clique that downvotes everything they post.

[-][anonymous]12y110

And from people who have a stalker clique that downvotes everything they post.

Or even one quick stalker with two socks.

[-][anonymous]12y140

That's a really good point. After this update, all one needs to stifle conversation with a trivial inconvenience is 3 + sockpuppets.

9buybuydandavis12y
Bingo. It's strange that with the incessant game theory analysis that goes on around here, anyone could think this is a good idea. I'd rather filter the list by counts of votes, up or down. I've turned off filters as it is. It will be interesting. I'd expect an increase of voting, which is good in itself, but probably that increase will be predominantly about gaming the system, and retaliating against perceived gaming. We'll see how surly people get. I wish some of the developers from the old Extropian list would implement their filtering mechanisms here. I didn't use it much, but they seemed to put some decent thought into the function and mechanics of a ratings system, instead of just tossing out some knee jerk adjustment. Let the Karma Wars begin!
0NancyLebovitz12y
What were the extropian mailing list filters?
2buybuydandavis12y
Thanks for asking, because I didn't realize the list was still in business. http://www.extropy.org/emaillists.htm I actually think they're entering their 3rd decade now. I was on it early to mid nineties. They seem to have gone moderated - see ""EXTROPY-CHAT" LIST AGREEMENT:" on the right side of the page. They had an elaborate user customized filtering mechanism. Usenet had regexp controlled field specific filtering. I think they built on that and went as far as transitive ranking - you could have a weighted filter of what selected people filtered. To the extent that all the griping over signal to noise is about a desire to control what you see, and not control what others see and say, there are decades old solutions to discussion filtering. The fancy shmancy Web has been a marked deevolution of capabilities in this regard. It's pitiful. No web discussion forum I know of has filtering capabilities even in the ball park of Usenet, which was available in the 80s. Pitiful.
3Emile12y
It wouldn't work; as far as I know the total downvotes you are allowed to give is function of your own karma; sockpuppets without karma couldn't downvote, and maintaining three sockpuppets that post enough to get karma (by upvoting each other?) sounds like a pretty non-trivial inconvenience.
7thomblake12y
The 'trivial inconvenience' described the experience for the commenter, not the experience for the stifler. And it's not hard to get karma for sockpuppets - they can all write relatively innocuous comments and upvote each other.
2Xachariah12y
Theoretically, the more sockpuppets you have, the easier it would be to give each one karma. Then again I don't think sockpuppets are really a significant problem at the moment. Hopefully they won't grow with these changes.
2Bruno_Coelho12y
So, there is a non-negligible chance of newbie become a future troll reading LW?
0Solvent12y
How many people actually have that?
8NancyLebovitz12y
Also, do you lose points if you reply to a thread which starts from a -3 or below comment?
8[anonymous]12y
No, apparently not. I posted this: http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/e96/an_anthropic_principle_fairy_tale/7apk And had 464 karma before and after.

I just realized that there's another problem with this scheme: anyone using the "Anti-Kibitzer" will have absolutely no clue why they're losing karma.

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Nope. It pops up a warning that asks you if you want to blow karma by replying if you try to reply to a downvoted post, even if you have the Kibitzer on.

1Kindly12y
That's good -- it means the mechanics did get considered in detail. I should have tried replying to a negative-karma comment several times first.

Does the reply get marked down to -5 to start with, or are the 5 karma points invisibly subtracted from one's total karma?

This confuses me too, actually. Before this feature, one's karma score was solely the sum of the scores of one's posts and comments. Adding another invisible feature means that your total karma can't be reliably reconstructed by looking at those features, even if you throw in information about the ancestors of the comments (because if you reply to a downvoted comment, that doesn't prevent it from later being upvoted). It adds an additional and uniquely nontransparent value.

Since deleted posts and comments contribute, the system is already nontransparent.

3A1987dM12y
What happens if I reply to a comment and later on it gets downvoted to -3? Or if I reply to a comment at -3 and it gets upvoted back up? (Not that I care about my total karma score that much, anyway.)
2MugaSofer11y
Nothing.
-40Eliezer Yudkowsky12y

So, I think it might just be poll time. Do you like the new anti-troll-feeding policy?

Vote here if you think the policy is a net negative.

2evand12y
Vote here if you think the new policy is a net good.
-25evand12y

0 here, but I know I got at least one point!

Seems fine now.

*adding keywords to suck in ctrl+f karma: fixed,working,back,patch,works,repaired,restored,okay

I also seem to have increasing karma despite recent downvotes. I may just have missed some older positive votes, though.

0A1987dM12y
Probably.
[-][anonymous]12y-10

The FAQ says "karma is mainly useful for letting people know how great you are." The (now disabled?) 'Karma for the last 30 days' tally suggests karma also has some relation to time.

I propose adding a function of karma decay. Over n-amount of time time, x-amount of karma is lost. This is also useful for letting people know how great you are.

I propose not messing with what isn't broken.

And fixing what is broken.

I propose adding a function of karma decay. Over n-amount of time time, x-amount of karma is lost.

Loss aversion would make this upsetting, perhaps more upsetting than gaining karma is pleasing.

2Douglas_Knight12y
Loss aversion was my first reaction to the 30 day karma feature. I wonder if the point was get people used to loss? Also, since it causes continual loss, it might make people less likely to notice isolated downvotes.
3Kaj_Sotala12y
I don't get loss aversion from the 30 day karma feature because it dropping doesn't mean that I'm losing karma, it only means that I'm gaining it slower.
8Richard_Kennaway12y
That would just weight the karma score to favour more recently obtained karma. That function is already performed, in a slightly different way, by the last 30 days karma score.