ndanger.organism

Paul Graham has some thoughts on trolls. I agree with his explanation of why people troll (also check the original comment thread), but think he might be over-selling the future of News.YC. He thinks they don’t have many trolls because

1. News.YC users don’t tolerate trolling
2. Votes on comments affect your karma
3. They’re small

It’s nice to think that #1–the noble intention of the users–somehow matters, but in my experience it doesn’t. I’m just a lurker (check that bangin’ karma!), but I don’t think there is anything particularly anti-troll about the News.YC’s users. I’ve traveled from Slashdot to Digg to reddit and can say that none of them seemed troll-friendly. For a time, most of reddit’s stories seemed to be about how Digg was crawling with trolls while reddit was just peachy. Three months later…

Having comments affecting your karma (#2) seems like a good idea. It emphasizes good discussion rather than skill at hunting down pro Ron Paul stories or speed at posting xkcd’s latest. Of course, this only matters if trolls care about karma. Someone with nothing better to do than post drivel in forums probably doesn’t mind burning down their karma and starting a new account. It also puts faith in the wisdom of the crowds. Paul has observed that News.YC’s algorithm hasn’t resulted in the down-voting of unpopular ideas. Part of that is probably based on another part of the algorithm: only users with karma of 20 or greater can down-vote. This leaves the judgement in the hands of the “better” users.

Rapid growth makes companies stupid. Part of this is probably bureaucratic drag, but there is also the failure of hiring: B players hire C players. Similarly, as they grow, forums attract less concerned users. For most forums, “hiring” is “whomever can fill out a sign-up form”. News.YC’s 20-karma rule is an improvement, but the ability for anyone to up-vote ensures that some B’s and C’s will make it to 20-karma status.

All of this makes me think that the main effect is due to size (#3).

All is not lost (or “So, you want a forum that doesn’t suck”)

If you believe John Gabriel’s Greater Internet FuFartwad Theory [NSFW, language], you can avoid trolls by:

1. Having a small audience
2. Disallowing anonymity
3. Attracting better than average users

The best example I know of is the most excellent Lambda: the Ultimate (L:tU). It’s a small group of extremely bright people. Anonymity is discouraged, so the majority of contributors use their real names and provide links back to their real web sites. Karma therefore is not a number in the upper-right hand corner, it’s public opinion of your intelligence. This seems to dissuade trolls. There are still minor (and intelligent) flame wars and joke comments, but overall the discussion is good. Real good. Other special purpose sites, such as the Clojure group or Paul’s own Arc forums are examples where the topic has refined the user base.

Small size isn’t for everyone, however. If you’re making money from ads (and want to drive a Jaguar), you probably want as large an audience as possible; if you’re selling your site on conversation you need a critical mass before it’s worthwhile. This makes growth a delicate game: too many users and your Digg, too few and you’re… well, you’re this blog. Though I do appreciate my audience: you are the four smartest people I know.

A strong leader

News.YC has another thing going for it: Paul Graham. He has a strong influence: his posts are always up-voted, his comments sway the conversation, and, to be honest, more than a few users are there because they respect what he’s done. Similarly Ehud Lamm (L:tU user #1 in case you mised it in the URL) is an active presence on L:tU and occasionally reminds users of the rules. Paul and Ehud are sharks in the water: their presence reminds posters that they are being watched. This is the intended effect of the News.YC’s 20-karma rule, just with way less scary sharks.

On the other hand, CmdrTaco was always present on Slashdot, and that didn’t stop it’s slide into mediocrity. That may have something to do with the tone. CmdTaco, god love him, is not the most serious cat. Even the name Slashdot was a joke. By contrast Paul and Ehud, while not crumudgeons, get down to business.

Bringing the power back to the (smart) people

The saying about B players hiring C players supposedly came from Apple. Apple is a good example of a company that is large but not stupid (anymore). This non-stupidity has a name: Steve Jobs. He’s a strong leader if ever there was one. But relying on a single leader also has it’s flaws. Do you need one?

Another company surviving incredible growth is Google. Although Larry and Sergi are smart guys, they seem more hands-off than Jobs. According to those at Google, it’s a very flat hierarchy, Google is relying on the genius of it’s crowds. And the crowd is pretty genius, thanks to Apple’s advice: Google’s interviews are tough. A flat hierarchy also makes it harder to hide in the corner of an org chart. If you’re not producing, people will know (this is also the case at small companies: everyone knows each other, so your stinky ideas are easily uncovered).

If you meet an idiot, don’t let him tell you that you suck

Can Google’s experience be applied to forums? All you need is a way to eliminate anonymity and rareify your users. I propose the answer is authorship.

For awhile, several bathrooms I used had books of zen sayings. One was something like

If you meet someone who is not a samurai, do not show him your sword.

My first read was “don’t cut up unarmed civilians,” which is certainly good advice. My second take was “someone who isn’t a samurai will not appreciate the quality of your sword.”

Trolls don’t contributed while telling everyone else how much they suck. Force people to contribute before they can comment (or vote), and maybe the problem goes away. Contributions could be a users own submitted blog posts or articles written on the site. This puts commenter’s skin in the game: they are creating an environment for evaluating their own work. It also makes for a very immediate form of karma: don’t piss off the people who are judging you.

This also effectively eliminates anonymity. I don’t mean anonymity as in hiding your “real-world” identity, but hiding your reputation behind a disposable identity. A non-disposable pseudonym works well, see chromatic for a good example. Combined with a karma system, the system could even allow for cloaked comments: a user posts sensitive items anonymously but the system applies moderation karma against their real identity. A downside is that cloaking is not legally anonymous: identity is discoverable via subpoena.

Another lesson from Google is it’s secret sauce: PageRank. When I started this post, I was mainly thinking of PageRank in terms of it’s technical implementation: high karma users votes carry more weight, etc. But it sounds like Slashdot already approximates that. If there are lessons in PageRank, they are 1) people try to game the system and 2) you’re going to need to tweak your algorithm.

So what about News.YC?

Oh, right.

I think News.YC’s best bet is simple: don’t try to grow.

If growth is inevitable, surviving becomes a matter of constant evolution: can your “algorithm” (which might be more social, such as disallowing anonymity) outpace the trolls? Karma from comments and a 20-karma minimum to down-vote are good examples. There is a small risk changes will alienate old users (as in “my karma went from 4 billion down to just ‘Excellent’… WTF?”), but this is outweighted by the positive effects: better content and that warm fuzzy feeling of knowing that someone is working hard to keep things tidy.

It’d be nice if such a system could remain open to all contributions. My fear is that it cannot, and that requiring contribution (as described above) will be required. But this is just another option to try if quality declines.

So I don’t think Paul’s stated reasons (anti-troll users and current karma system) are enough, but I do think it’s possible. And success will rely on rapid iteration so–given Paul’s methodology–I’m hopeful.