[Forum] Reaction spam

[T10_]

@Remocracy just had a situation where his magical internet points vanished and went to -214 at the time of this post. Regardless if this is abuse (I argue it's not), we should find a solution to this so further magical internet point loss doesn't happen

Here are a few solutions that could solve this problem:

• limit accounts to only be able to react x times a day (credits to @Zephyrus)
• limit the reactions one user account can add to another user, e.g. x reactions in x time (credits to me)
• shadow yeet the magical internet points added or deducted by the reactions (and maybe even the reactions itself) if the user is detected to be spamming them (also important for upvote bots) (credits to me)

What should be done about post upvote and downvote spam could be solved with this too, but I think it should be handled differently

Reply with other solutions if you have one.

Spoiler: Solution shortcuts

Collection of your solutions:

• user weight for reactions (#2)
• to lower a score => lower your score at the same time (#4)
• Replace the counter with a face whose emotion changes depending on the proportion of negative to positive points one has. (#7)
• reaction score should not be public [...], removing the points altogether (#14)
• remove them, and maybe only show the score of specific comments. (#15)
• you can only give “magical internet points” after you yourself has been given the points (#20)
• "one account should be able to influence the reaction score of another account by at most one point" (#26)
• "wipe at the end of the month with top 10 and last 10 people shown. [...] MD could also integrate trophies in this system so said people will be awarded something." (#29)
• "'reaction score' could just be renamed to 'monthly reaction score'" (#32)
• "The points are a mistake. The scores shouldn't exist, all the reactions should give 0 points." (#34)
• "You need at least a few generic [rules]" (#45)
• "either completely remove the reaction/point system, or to remove all negative reactions" (#47)
• "reactions being kept on the posts themselves and not applied to the user" (#49)

 

[rikuwu]

A common measure is to reduce the reaction weight of a user after x amount of reactions on another user's posts (see: reddit karma, logarithmic scaling)

Although, I really don't think this is an issue of concern; it's imaginary internet points that hold no value whatsoever, if you actually do care about that please grow up

 

[kuma]

are spamming them put stress on the server? if not, then i couldn't care less.

 

[OisE]

An idea : https://forums.mangadex.org/threads/how-is-reaction-score-calculated.1076889/post-16633890

 

[Trobilobada]

Who cares? Reaction score is a gimmick, your post doesn't get less visibility or anything like that here, it has no actual function as far as I can tell. Once the novelty wore off, people will use it normally, or barely.

 

[T10_]

are spamming them put stress on the server? if not, then i couldn't care less.

One more thing to pull from the database and load for every reaction added (just like with read markers). But I wouldn't say it's what produces the most stress.

 

[SangAmatSangat]

Replace the counter with a face whose emotion changes depending on the proportion of negative to positive points one has.

So, for example, a user with 90% positive reactions will have a big ol' face with a beaming smile, while those with 60% negative reactions will have a face saddened by this fact.

This solution works as it removes the effect of seeing a big number conveying something bad, e.g. -2800 points at a -3000:200 ratio, and is instead replaced with a face vaguely saying what is the community's opinion of this user.

 

[rikuwu]

Who cares? Reaction score is a gimmick, your post doesn't get less visibility or anything like that here, it has no actual function as far as I can tell. Once the novelty wore off, people will use it normally, or barely.

^ this.
Every other suggestion implies that reaction score is something that you should actually care about. Which it isn't. Please find something better to do with your time.

 

[Remocracy]

A common measure is to reduce the reaction weight of a user after x amount of reactions on another user's posts (see: reddit karma, logarithmic scaling)

Although, I really don't think this is an issue of concern; it's imaginary internet points that hold no value whatsoever, if you actually do care about that please grow up

The "reaction points" have inherent meaning by existing. Maybe they don't have value to you but it says "score", meaning people can use it as a gauge of trustworthiness.

 

[rikuwu]

The "reaction points" have inherent meaning by existing. Maybe they don't have value to you but it says "score", meaning people can use it as a gauge of trustworthiness.

Do you consider reddit karma to be a gauge of trust? No, they are simply magic internet points with no meaning whatsoever.

While I disagree with disagreeing with you simply for the sake of disagreeing with you, I really do think that both you and that other guy are blowing it out of proportion

Though, it's not as if you should really be discussing about trust anyways, considering your previous actions...

 

[Remocracy]

Do you consider reddit karma to be a gauge of trust? No, they are simply magic internet points with no meaning whatsoever.

While I disagree with disagreeing with you simply for the sake of disagreeing with you, I really do think that both you and that other guy are blowing it out of proportion

Though, it's not as if you should really be discussing about trust anyways, considering your previous actions...

I mean it wouldn’t matter so much if the reaction score wasn’t displayed on every post I made. On Reddit to even see the commenter’s karma you have to click on their username.

 

[Ivegotnolife]

I don't put a lot of weight to the reaction score but perhaps if there was a way to have the reactions show without them actually affecting the score negatively unless multiple nontriggerhappy users also decided a bonking or strike was in order.

Though now that I know of the reactions potential effects, I'm more inclined to get my feelings across with GIFs when times call for it.

 

[rikuwu]

I don't put a lot of weight to the reaction score but perhaps if there was a way to have the reactions show without them actually affecting the score negatively unless multiple nontriggerhappy users also decided a bonking or strike was in order.

Though now that I know of the reactions potential effects, I'm more inclined to get my feelings across with GIFs when times call for it.

Simply stop caring about score. And stop caring about the people who care about score. The most "effect" a reaction would have is make some people butthurt, nothing more (MD doesn't derank posts based on the OP's score).

 

[Zephyrus]

The following is my personal opinion:

@Remocracy isn't entirely wrong when he says that, to some degree, a person's reaction score can potentially color how another user views them.

Something needs to change here. Either reaction score should not be public or we should change how reactions work, either by removing the points altogether or figuring something else out.

Personally, I think it's a fun and potentially useful feature when it's not being abused. I would really hate to see it go.

 

[SpaceTurtle]

I don't see the point of having a global reaction score for each user. It's not relevant because of how easy it is to game the system. Even if it's not abused one user can get a lot of points from making a good suggestion only to lose them all a moment later for criticizing some popular manga, so the points just don't tell you anything useful about the user.

I suggest you remove them, and maybe only show the score of specific comments.

 

[strangeirdo]

To say the reaction score doesn't matter is just wrong. Remocracy's point of it being a value of trustworthiness is correct, although their reasoning is pretty bad. It's like going to a Youtube videos before dislikes got removed. If you see that a video has a ton of dislikes, you already know that that video isn't worth your time, especially if you're looking for help on something.

It also just adds a negative connotation. Just as an example, if you're unsure if someone is trolling or if they're being serious, just by looking at their negative score you can probably assume that they're just trolling.

Speaking of Youtube's removal of dislikes, an option would be to just not make their score go into the negatives. Like if you have 100 positive score and 20 negative score, then you're actual score would be 80, but if you have 0 positive score but 20 negative, you would still stay at 0. But, a big reason why people didn't like them getting rid of dislikes is that ability to tell the trustworthiness at a glance, so do what you will.

Edit: Also, karma in reddit has a functional side as well. Limiting the ability to post/comment based on their karma not only gets rid of trolls, but also makes it harder for bots to spam.

 

[Trobilobada]

To say the reaction score doesn't matter is just wrong. Remocracy's point of it being a value of trustworthiness is correct, although their reasoning is pretty bad. It's like going to a Youtube videos before dislikes got removed. If you see that a video has a ton of dislikes, you already know that that video isn't worth your time, especially if you're looking for help on something.

And your reasoning is just as awful. People like and dislike for many different reasons, bandwagon most of the time for the stupidest ones, and just as you shouldn't assume anything from a negative score here, you shouldn't assume a youtube video with a ton of likes is quality content.

 

[strangeirdo]

And your reasoning is just as awful. People like and dislike for many different reasons, bandwagons most of the time for the stupidest ones, and just as you shouldn't assume anything from a negative score here, you shouldn't assume a youtube video with a ton of likes is quality content.

Doesn't matter what should or shouldn't happen, it's just human psychology. It's like saying someone shouldn't judge others based on appearance, or as a closer comparison, at first glance. Just because it's true doesn't mean that people don't do it. Even if you personally don't, it doesn't change the fact that it happens.

Bandwagons, and other reasons is why Youtube removed removed the dislike feature. Is it because the dislike feature didn't affect people's perception? No, it's precisely because it does.
If you go on
https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/letter-susan-our-2022-priorities/
They repeat what you said

However, people dislike videos for many reasons, including some that have nothing to do with the video

As a reason to remove the dislikes, not to keep them.

 

[T10_]

Something needs to change here. Either reaction score should not be public or we should change how reactions work, either by removing the points altogether or figuring something else out.

Only showing the magical internet points of the last few days could work. I'd say the last 7 days is good, but 1 day could work too.

 

[ixangel]

A solution that I can think of is to have a system where you can only give “magical internet points” after you yourself has been given the points, so let’s say you got awarded X points you could award other people up to X/2 points. Also you could consider that but with sufficient user interaction to grant them power to give out X amount of points.