That taking a lesser amount would be good except for when dealing with spam, plagiarism, or obvious abuse (doxing, etc.)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
That taking a lesser amount would be good except for when dealing with spam, plagiarism, or obvious abuse (doxing, etc.)
A better idea would be that the same account's downvotes on a certain account lose value for a certain amount of time and/or enter diminishing returns after the first downvote. Easy example, account A's first downvote on account B has 100% weight, but downvote #2 in the same week only 50%, #3 only 25% and #4 only 12.5% while downvote #5 goes to 0 and you have to wait a week to be able to affect said author again. We had diminishing returns on upvotes back in the day and tried them for a while but people just switched to sockpuppets, but wondering how it could work against malicious downvotes in comparison.
That sounds like an option that might be viable and worth trying. It would deter malicious voting unless they use multiple accounts. Part of why I rarely recommend a solution is because any solution I think of is easily circumvented just by using multiple accounts.
90% of the time people always forget sybil attacks.
Yeah it is one of the first questions I started asking. Can I bypass this with multiple accounts. It is the main reason I don't usually offer solutions because all of them I can think of can be bypassed this way.
Doesn't it work like that already? I was chasing a couple of accounts not too long ago that would delete old posts and then republish in the POB frontend under new names. It took me a long time to recover my DV power that week.
Your query on malicious DV'ing would work well, I think. If someone posts daily and gets rewards zeroed daily (assuming it isn't justified) it would prevent some continuous DVs from occurring. Though I don't know it would be effective against DV trails.
With spam, plag, abuse, etc you'd have a much easier time getting many different accounts to help you quickly target them.
Yes in my observations I agree with you.