I just got through reading an academic paper on fixing social systems. The entire paper was written along the lines of "how do we stop attacks?" In other words, if the system is broken, it must be because somebody is purposely breaking it in some way.
Whether it's 500 RP supporters purposely joining reddit or 500 of the existing reddit users who happen to be rabid Paul supporters, it's a distinction without a difference. The rest of us have to put up with the behavior of reddit simply because it has the attribute "all it takes is 500 votes to get a story to the top of the frontpage"
For a long time I was convinced RP supporters were purposely gaming the system. I've changed my mind in the last few months, though, after meeting and talking to some of these folks. They just are really excited, that's all, and they're already reddit, or digg, or whatever users.
Another way to look at it is thus: while it's true that a small number of users constantly "run" large social sites, that's because only a small number of users give a hoot about ranking or rating articles. The rest are just apathetic. But for certain topics, like Ron Paul, or LISP, or Mac vs PC, or tax policy, or weasel juggling, a _new_ set of small users suddenly becomes very energized. The system works as long as everybody is fairly complacent. Once anything starts really motivating people, you get these swings out of whack. That's my view, for what it's worth. Perhaps "voting ring" is one way to characterize them, but I'm not sure it does justice to the situation that's really occurring.
Whether it's 500 RP supporters purposely joining reddit or 500 of the existing reddit users who happen to be rabid Paul supporters, it's a distinction without a difference. The rest of us have to put up with the behavior of reddit simply because it has the attribute "all it takes is 500 votes to get a story to the top of the frontpage"
For a long time I was convinced RP supporters were purposely gaming the system. I've changed my mind in the last few months, though, after meeting and talking to some of these folks. They just are really excited, that's all, and they're already reddit, or digg, or whatever users.
Another way to look at it is thus: while it's true that a small number of users constantly "run" large social sites, that's because only a small number of users give a hoot about ranking or rating articles. The rest are just apathetic. But for certain topics, like Ron Paul, or LISP, or Mac vs PC, or tax policy, or weasel juggling, a _new_ set of small users suddenly becomes very energized. The system works as long as everybody is fairly complacent. Once anything starts really motivating people, you get these swings out of whack. That's my view, for what it's worth. Perhaps "voting ring" is one way to characterize them, but I'm not sure it does justice to the situation that's really occurring.