this post was submitted on
45 points (79% like it)
61 up votes 16 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

all 56 comments

[–]Mitkebes 19 points20 points ago

This is just speculation, but I was under the impression that only a percentage of the downvotes on a person's comments go to their profile. I don't really have any evidence other than watching how people's comment karma changes with a heavily downvoted post.

[–]Patrick5555 8 points9 points ago

I've had a comment go to -162 (net points) and my karma only suffered a 20 point deduction.

[–]rlayton 8 points9 points ago

(speculation as well) It's likely that some function of downvotes are considered (such as log x) rather then normal counts to reduce the impact of a few bad comments.

Why it's positive at all though.... perhaps downvotes aren't considered at all...?

[–]puredemo[S] 18 points19 points ago

Right now he has:

  • Negative 5,529 karma on his 12 negative posts.
  • Positive 1,312 karma on his 3 positive posts.
  • 626 positive overall comment karma.

Perhaps there's a cap on how many downvotes are counted on a given post?

If someone could only could get a max of -50 per comment, the math almost works out:

  • 1312 positive, (50*12) = 600 negative, comes out to 712.

Technically it would have to be something like a max of 57 downvotes per comment to come out right.

[–]ben174 5 points6 points ago

I think multiple downvotes from a single person are counted as one, to prevent a downvote brigade from a single angry user. "I've gone and downvoted all your comments". Which is what I suspect many users did in this case.

[–]Borror0 9 points10 points ago

From Stack Overflow's blog:

As we discovered in the Stack Overflow podcast with the Reddit guys, they have a hidden mechanism for detecting and defeating revenge voting patterns.

[–]vinceredd 7 points8 points ago

Makes me wonder if there isn't some sort of shutoff valve where it stops counting them after a certain point so that it takes away any incentive to bomb someone with downvotes on purpose.

[–]familyturtle 2 points3 points ago

But if there were then surely it would be publicly known? Otherwise it takes away some of the point of the idea.

[–]personman 4 points5 points ago

I have a single submission with 700+ total karma (and my other submissions are all positive) but my total link karma is only 647.

On the other hand, I track my comment karma fairly closely, and while there are occasionally small discrepancies, the total tends to be much more accurate than that (even in the case of the two or three massively upvoted comments I've had).

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points ago

Could some downvotes be negated if a person went through and downvoted all of a given user's comments? While each comment would show negatives, the overall karma wouldn't be effected.

[–]hideyomudkipz 3 points4 points ago

I'm positive i've seen people's karma count in the negative, perhaps they changed policy so only comments that score above 0 count towards karma shown.

[–]Archenoth 4 points5 points ago

You have... Here is a good example.

It is getting lower by the day too, so it shows that you can be downvoted below zero and have it show up.

[–]papalkombat 3 points4 points ago

Just... wow. That's an impressive account, right there.

[–]AnusFelcherMD 0 points1 point ago

That's nothing. This guy has below -10,000 karma:

http://www.reddit.com/user/pitofdoom

[–]JeffK22 7 points8 points ago

In 3 years. The other guy has -4,000 karma in 6 days.

Have to say, reading his comments, I'm not understanding why he's so heavily downvoted. They're the kind of comments you usually see bottoming out at -5 or -10, but he's hitting -120 regularly.

[–]kaini 5 points6 points ago

It's the obnoxious tone and the smileys, I think.

[–]puredemo[S] 4 points5 points ago

-4k in six days really is pretty impressive.

[–]Shaper_pmp 4 points5 points ago

Because he's posting in r/funny, r/pics and other high-traffic subreddits.

Higher traffic = more people voting = more extreme high/low scores for unusually popular/unpopular content.

[–]zaferk 2 points3 points ago

As a person that used to accumulated negative karma (-6000 before b&) thats just...impressive!

[–]Dr_fish 0 points1 point ago

What's impressive about it?

[–]cojoco 2 points3 points ago

It's a skill.

[–]Dr_fish 2 points3 points ago

It doesn't take skill. Anyone with an average social intelligence knows what to say to upset people.

[–]papalkombat 0 points1 point ago

Ah, /r/athiesm, /r/politics and /r/conspiracy make for a powerful combination, I see...

[–]absolutebeginners 2 points3 points ago

What happened in that thread??

[–]ceol_ 9 points10 points ago

From what people have hypothesized, Woody (or whoever was doing the AMA) was under the impression this was a sort of "group interview" about his new movie. After both dismissing a (rather inappropriate) question and telling commenters to "keep it about the movie", they started to mass-downvote all of his posts sans three.

My biased take: reddit still hasn't figured out it's the prey of advertisers and marketers all the time, and the same way it will hate on someone not specifying they got a link from reddit but then upvote blatantly-stolen content, it will also heavily-downvote anyone who outright says they're trying to market something but then upvote a freakin' AT&T commercial and make it into a meme.

[–]hopstar 4 points5 points ago

My biased take: reddit still hasn't figured out it's the prey of advertisers and marketers all the time

Oh, I'm sure most of us are aware of this, and i think a lot of us accept it, as long as it's on our terms. Louis C.K. is a perfect example of "doin' it right"; he actually did the AMA himself (as opposed to sending a publicist), answered a couple hundred questions, cracked a bunch of jokes, and was happy to talk about all sorts of thing besides the stand-up special he was promoting.

When you stop and think about it for a moment, every magazine you read, every TV show you watch, and almost every website you visit is either trying to sell you something directly or trying to sell your "eyes" to an advertiser. I can accept the fact that advertising foots the bill for most entertainment, but as long as I'm actually being entertained I don't mind being marketed to or "being the product." Unfortunately for Woody's PR team, they greatly misunderstood the AMA concept, and suffered accordingly.

[–]blackstar9000 2 points3 points ago

The thing is, though, before the Harrelson backlash began, there was nothing to signal to celebs, or anyone outside of Reddit for that matter, that there was a "right way" to do it. I'm still not convinced that there is.

Sticking with the Harrelson AMA for a moment, that thread got voted onto the front page even before Harrelson answered a single question. In fact, he had made it clear that it would be three or four hours before he came back and answered any questions at all. Which indicates that redditors up vote celebrity AMAs out of sheer excitement for having the celebrity drop in at all. So why shouldn't publicists and celebrities think that treating it like any other press event is "doin' it right"?

I don't think Harrelson's behavior explains what happened with that AMA. In fact, looking back over the top AMAs of all time, it looks to me like a lot of those were just as transparently about plugging the celebrity's recent work. Rather, it looks to me like the top-voted comment set a lot of expectations, and a lot of redditors staked their response to the entire AMA on how Harrelson and company answered that one question. When he blew it off, they turned on him.

Unfortunately for Woody's PR team, they greatly misunderstood the AMA concept, and suffered accordingly.

I think that's a misreading of the consequences. They got publicity out of that. The name of their movie was on the front page of Reddit for hours before the backlash began, and even the bad press they got afterward raised the profile of the movie a notch. If it's unfortunate for anyone, it's unfortunate for redditors who like celebrity AMAs, since celebrities can now see how quickly redditors might turn on them, and will be reluctant to stage AMAs in the future.

[–]cojoco 1 point2 points ago

Rather, it looks to me like the top-voted comment set a lot of expectations, and a lot of redditors staked their response to the entire AMA on how Harrelson and company answered that one question. When he blew it off, they turned on him.

If you're talking about the virginity question: how could he have answered it without appearing like a dick?

[–]blackstar9000 2 points3 points ago

It was a trap from the get-go. There was no appropriate way to answer it. And publicists in the future are going to look at that sort of thing as reason #1 why they're better served by traditional interviews with professional journalists than by exposing their celebrities to potential embarrassments like that.

[–]Shaper_pmp 2 points3 points ago

To be fair, whoever was behind the account (Harrelson or his publicist) was also snotty, patronizing and only alotted about 15 minutes to answer questions.

I think what really got to people was him doing an "Ask Me Anything" and then getting pissy when people asked him to do anything apart from gush about his new movie (that no-one cared about).

They thought it would be a tame, fawning audience of voiceless people who were already interested in the movie for them to shout marketing BS at, when actually it was an audience of people with their own opinions who could and did answer back when they smelled inauthenticity, who were there to talk about other subjects with Harelson so they could become interested in the movie.

Classic case of mis-marketing by misunderstanding your audience, combined with treating people like dumb cattle in a medium where they can answer back and tell you where to stick it.

[–]midir 2 points3 points ago

Marketing.

[–]andrewsmith1986 8 points9 points ago

Going to someones profile and downvoting everything does not change their karma.

This is to keep people from being harassed.

It is built into the system.

[–]aboynamedsu 2 points3 points ago

Not sure why you were downvoted. It's entirely possible that once the drama exploded a lot of people just went straight to his user page and downvoted everything there, rather than sift through the original thread to find his 15 replies. Obviously, none of those downvotes would count, even though they'll register in the visible (+/-).

[–]andrewsmith1986 0 points1 point ago

Somepeople downvote me on sight.

Don't worry.

[–]blackstar9000 3 points4 points ago

I know I do. But I do it through your profile page, and always a dozen or so at a time, so that it doesn't count.

[–]andrewsmith1986 1 point2 points ago

ಠ_ಠ

That would crush me blackstar.

[–]aboynamedsu -1 points0 points ago

Irrational behavior always worries me...

[–]blackstar9000 1 point2 points ago

Reddit has a mechanism to prevent mass down voting. Basically, as I understand it, if you go through a person's profile and down vote a bunch of their contributions at once, it won't count most of those votes. Since that's almost certainly what happened with the Harrelson AMA, I suspect that a lot of those down votes were never counted into his totals.

[–]cojoco 1 point2 points ago

I created a thread about this a day before you, but didn't put "Woody" in the title.

Silly me.

[–]1338h4x -3 points-2 points ago

I've noticed that karma usually isn't just equal to the sum of all your comments/submissions. I've seen new accounts with just one or two high rated posts but karma lower than that, and so I guess the same applies here.

[–]Youre_So_Pathetic -4 points-3 points ago

Because he's an approved AMA dude, so he gets comment karma to negate the spam filter.

[–]puredemo[S] 3 points4 points ago

His username isn't in the approved submitter list.

[–]SwampySoccerField 1 point2 points ago

That may be the case but its possible some numbers were fudged to inflate the initial popularity of the AMA. There also seems to have been a change in the way the upvote/downvote bot prevention does things. This may have played a part in that?

The karma has been practically locked at that number of Karma for a while (since completely tanked yesterday) I believe if I am not mistaken.

[–]cojoco 0 points1 point ago

I don't think that's the explanation.

Plenty of normal redditors have noticed a mismatch between individual comment karmas and total comment karma.

[–]SwampySoccerField 0 points1 point ago

I was tossing up ideas. Figured somebody would find the right one eventually.