• eric
    link
    fedilink
    221 year ago

    I mean, it kind of does mean something small, which is credibility. Karma wasn’t ever a flawless way to determine credibility, but it was a decent first pass, like an online ocular patdown.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        Example: replace this entire comment with a portion of a highly upvoted comment below from this same thread, combine that with an official experience that only shows one or two top level comments and those copies can also get lots of upvotes. Reddit was rife with these kinds of bots.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        In ideal situation downvote should not be used for disagreeing but topic relevant and quality. In ideal situation…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      Bro I’ve never for a second thought that gallowboob had any credibility whatsoever and the motherfucker had like, all the KARMA

      • eric
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        You’re completely missing my point. I’m not saying you should worship the guy, but he has more credibility than a troll with negative karma or a 3 month old tshirt bot with a few hundred karma from plagiarized comments.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Hi I’m necrocommenting this old comment, sorry.

        You’re conflating post karma and comment karma. Post karma is shit and almost everyone on reddit with super high post karma is awful. Comment karma however is often a decent measure of credibility. The problem is people conflate the two, or worse, inappropriately value post karma over comment karma.