547
548

We apologize (self.announcements)

ekjp[A] が 投稿x13

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]rfbandit 1443ポイント1444ポイント  (135子コメント)

Thank you for finally apologizing on here, instead of through media interviews. Should've come to your community first, instead of the press. But you also miss the point. You say a majority of reddit users don't care. But, those of us who create content for the lurkers care. Acting flippant isn't a good way to get us on your side.

[–]ekjp[S,A] 265ポイント266ポイント  (134子コメント)

My quote was not clear the way it was reported. I address that here but you might not have seen it because of the downvotes.

[–]rfbandit 30ポイント31ポイント  (6子コメント)

Thank you for responding, and I know how the media can take things out of context at times. But why go to them in the first place? Why not address the community directly? That way, your words are your words, and there's no confusion.

[–]eyassh 11ポイント12ポイント  (5子コメント)

Already explained here: https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3cbo4m/we_apologize/csu0fus

It was hard to communicate on the site, because my comments were being downvoted. I did comment here and was communicating on a private subreddit. I'm here now.

[–]Juan_Kagawa 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Thats really not a great excuse when she could have easily made a self post any time.

[–]somedelightfulmoron -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, it's not good enough. Aside from making a self post or a sticky, she doesn't know how reddit works, which is really bad form considering she is CEO of reddit. There's r/blog or r/announcements.

[–]portugalthephilosoph -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

She probably didn't know how to make a self-post, and tried to link her PM inbox again.

[–]GottaGetToIt 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

This has been addressed. Admins can send links to PMs to one another. She tried to post in an admin sub but posted on the wrong tab. Deimorz confirmed 3 weeks ago.

[–]ThinKrisps 303ポイント304ポイント  (72子コメント)

Maybe if reddit didn't change the voting system people could see how many upvotes you've gotten too. BTW, that link doesn't clear up anything and this is just making things worse for you.

[–]AnOnlineHandle 326ポイント327ポイント  (52子コメント)

The voting system never showed how many votes people had, it was fuzzed to prevent bots from knowing if they were being detected, and it was changed years before Pao was hired.

[–]umop_ep1sdn 18ポイント19ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's been a little over a year... https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/28hjga/reddit_changes_individual_updown_vote_counts_no/

[–]Two-Tone- 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jesus christ, a year already?

[–]AnOnlineHandle 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah true, feels like longer, but I don't know if Pao was even around then, or really related to that anyway.

[–]sosr 55ポイント56ポイント  (28子コメント)

That was for posts, not comments. RES used to give an accurate number on upvotes/downvotes on comments.

Edit: Yep, thanks, I get that some people disagree.

[–]AnOnlineHandle 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

When I had the RES functionality to do it I could refresh comments and see the numbers change, I think even comments which had been locked from voting due to being too old. When I heard about the fuzzing algorithm I spent a little while looking at it, since I'm a software engineer and get curious about weird things I don't really understand.

[–]wojx 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Clearly the admins don't care about this anymore. They hardly even address it

[–]AnOnlineHandle -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

They made a big statement about why they changed it.

[–]Thallassa 8ポイント9ポイント  (18子コメント)

No, it did not. The numbers RES used to be able to access through the API were always fuzzed. Accurate upvote/downvote counts have never been made public, either through normal means or through the API.

In fact, confusion like your own is one of the reasons the "feature" was removed!

[–]AFabledHero 22ポイント23ポイント  (14子コメント)

The important information was the ratio which was accurate.

[–]Thallassa -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

If the ratio was accurate what could be fuzzed? You could just multiply the ratio by the karma to get the actual upvotes/downvotes.

Rather, the only number that was accurate was the karma - i.e. the result of subtracting downvotes from upvotes - and that continues to be accurate.

[–]AFabledHero 13ポイント14ポイント  (6子コメント)

It was accurate. What you're saying is incorrect.

When a comment is universally accepted the ratio reflected it (400/-30)

when a troll post with everyone shitting on it came along the ratio reflected that (15/-100).

When a controversial comment with a decided discussion came along the numbers were close to even (90/80). This was replaced by the cross that we have now.

On top of that the fuzzed numbers were relative to every other comment. It wasn't just a completely random numbers being thrown around. Some people actually paid attention to these things.

[–]Thallassa 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

The ratios reflected what was going on, and I understand that. But they were still fuzzed.

[–]bobjrsenior -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

The ratio was not accurate. For more info, see an older comment I made here

[–]AFabledHero 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

This didn't happen in smaller subs. Did you ever consider your theory isn't correct?

[–]bobjrsenior 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

I linked the wrong comment which didn't have a source. Here is the source

Quick Edit: Excerpt:

The problem is that it's just not really possible to do without severely hurting our ability to prevent vote-manipulation. Basically, we have to pick two of these three things with the voting information we display:

  1. Detailed
  2. Accurate/reliable
  3. Resistant to vote-cheating

The system of score + controversial indicator allows us to have #2 + #3. The reason people are upset about the change is that they believe that they used to have all three of those (to a fairly high degree), but they don't realize how often the vote counts were inaccurate, or how far off they could be. It was definitely actually #1 + #3.

Previously when you saw a vote count like +7/-10, you actually couldn't come to any reliable conclusions. You had no way to tell if that was perfectly accurate information, or if it was more like a 0/-3 or +1/-4 with a fair amount of fuzzing for some reason. Everyone assumed that it meant the comment was controversial, but that often wasn't the case. It might have been controversial, sometimes, but there was no way to tell which cases were believable and which weren't. Again, the fact that there was no way to tell how accurate the counts were was the deliberate goal of the system.

[–]likeafox 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well just to pile on: wrong.

[–]Alacritous 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Those were fuzzed too. It's why it's gone now. It wasn't an accurate view on the votes.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]sosr 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That's about submissions, not comments.

    [–]stizzleomnibus1 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It showed a rough estimate of the amount. Additionally, the fuzzing only kicked in above a certain level. On small subs, the numbers almost always matched exactly.

    The fuzzing was never really a problem in terms of accuracy, because it's impossible to get accurate data on the internet. If I load a page and a heavily-read post has 1,239 upvotes, I can bet that number is out of date by at least a handful. So even if it's fuzzed, the degree of uncertainty in that value barely changed.

    [–]ninjakitty7 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Just another good ol' jab at (?|?)

    [–]dasut 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It DID show how many votes a comment had. It just didn't do it precisely. He's not wrong.

    [–]MaxFreedomMoussa -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

    On Voat.co you can see the real upvotes/downvotes. It's pretty awesome.

    [–]AnOnlineHandle 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

    It'll run into the same problems though, there was a reason reddit removed them which they explained.

    [–]bluej10013 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Voat limits upvoting/downvoting privileges for new accounts. Fuzzing isn't the only possible solution.

    [–]AnOnlineHandle 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    There's been cases revealed of companies who pay people to make accounts with high karma to be used for their bots, it's not good enough. Reddit already limits new accounts in posting time, and probably limits their voting behind the scenes (hence the fuzzing).

    [–]MaxFreedomMoussa -3ポイント-2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    The reason was so they could fudge the upvotes/downvotes as they please, there was no legitimate problems with displaying both.

    [–]AnOnlineHandle -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

    They listed their reasons for hiding it, I could never be assed reading what they were though.

    [–]godofallcows 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It worked well for smaller subs at least, but they completely ignored anyone stating that. Stupid daggers.

    [–]PhD_in_basket_waving 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Still a shitty decision.

    [–]labortooth -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's become so fashionable for the young and impressionable redditors to flame Pao that she's begun to apologize for the wrongs her predecessors and colleagues may or may not have made.

    [–]ThinKrisps -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Pao's stance here seems to be directed towards all of the changes in recent years, not just one's she's been involved in.

    [–]AnOnlineHandle -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Yeah she's apologizing for reddit's behaviour since before she was around (though I think she was one of the original founders or something, and has been around in some capacity, which is why she got the job), but even if she does we cannot sanely blame her for things from before she even worked there.

    [–]BobbyPortis 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

    ...She was not an original founder lol

    [–]ThinKrisps 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

    When did I even blame her for the voting system? Don't downvote me because you're misconstruing my words.

    [–]AnOnlineHandle -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ... By replying to my comment about just that?

    [–]SlightlyEnraged -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The "voting system" is and has been a joke since the moment "vote futzing" was implemented. Voting on reddit is completely pointless, meaningless, and worthless, and I refuse to take part in it. Hiding the downvote totals is just a sleazy way to allow admins and mods to push up favoured content and was the beginning of the diggification of reddit

    [–]commentsrus 20ポイント21ポイント  (6子コメント)

    BTW, that link doesn't clear up anything and this is just making things worse for you.

    How does it not answer the question and how does it make things worse? She specifically stated who she was referring to in that quote, the minority of users who think it's fun to make racist and sexist comments about her.

    [–]Kenny__Loggins 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yes, it clears everything up if you have any sort of reading comprehension.

    [–]OnNom 13ポイント14ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Having the total upvotes and total downvotes was critical to finding high-quality controversial comments. They should turn that feature back on.

    [–]theonewhomknocks 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    You can still find those. Sort by: Controversial

    [–]OnNom 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

    That doesn't help at all when the comments in question are part of a single comment chain.

    It also requires the use of two different sort methods just to see the content.

    [–]bobjrsenior 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

    The vote counts were never accurate in number or ratio. Information about it is from a comment by /u/deimorz here

    Excerpt:

    The problem is that it's just not really possible to do without severely hurting our ability to prevent vote-manipulation. Basically, we have to pick two of these three things with the voting information we display:

    1. Detailed
    2. Accurate/reliable
    3. Resistant to vote-cheating

    The system of score + controversial indicator allows us to have #2 + #3. The reason people are upset about the change is that they believe that they used to have all three of those (to a fairly high degree), but they don't realize how often the vote counts were inaccurate, or how far off they could be. It was definitely actually #1 + #3.

    Previously when you saw a vote count like +7/-10, you actually couldn't come to any reliable conclusions. You had no way to tell if that was perfectly accurate information, or if it was more like a 0/-3 or +1/-4 with a fair amount of fuzzing for some reason. Everyone assumed that it meant the comment was controversial, but that often wasn't the case. It might have been controversial, sometimes, but there was no way to tell which cases were believable and which weren't. Again, the fact that there was no way to tell how accurate the counts were was the deliberate goal of the system.

    [–]OnNom 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    The ratio of upvotes to downvots was always correct. It might have said 3/-2 or 6/-4, but the ratio was correct.

    This is much like posts work currently. The ratio (62% upvoted) is correct, but the total votes (5829) is fuzzed.

    [–]likeafox 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That was never an intended feature and as per bobjrsenior's comment, you were never seeing accurate numbers anyway.

    [–]xFADE48x 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Your blaming her for things she didn't even do

    [–]dat_username_tho 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

    How does it not clear up anything? She said that the people harassing her and calling her every shitty name in the book are insignificant, and they are. They'll move on with their shitty lives after they become bored with it and nothing of value will come from them.

    [–]mudclog 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That link is pretty clear. She explicitly clarifies the context of the quote.

    [–]CompsciCorrections 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    What isn't clear to you in that link?

    I've seen people post pictures of her with titles like "THIS GOOK WHORE NEEDS TO FUCKING DIE". I'm pretty sure the dudes posting stupid shit like that are a vocal minority, these are the people she was talking about (allegedly). It doesn't come out that way in the article though. I suppose we could ask the author of the article if the context she provided is accurate to clear things up?

    [–]my_coding_account 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    One tool I would like to see is admin and AMA posts staying visible despite downvotes.

    [–]nujabesrip 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Maybe we saw it and are down voting it because it's a non-answer.

    [–]buzz182 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Why was the CEO's response to communicate through media outlets rather than directly with users?

    [–]GeneraIDisarray 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I can tell you for a fact that the majority of people against your views and actions have never commented about it.

    [–]Ralain 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You didn't answer why you went to media interviews first before coming to the Reddit community first.

    [–]jgur88 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Could you shut the fuck up about the downvotes and play the roles of an adult as well as a CEO?

    [–]Ls777 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Maybe the role of babysitter as well with how childish the average commenter here is :)

    [–]NotKateBush[🍰] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    She was giving a valid reason to the question of why she has to respond somewhere else. She's having to repeat herself so often because it's being asked so often.

    It's clear from the responses nothing she'll ever do will be ok. A small but vocal group of reddit users are just looking for drama and the chance to feel important.

    [–]joe-h2o 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Given the way she's being treated, maybe she should play the role of babysitter too, eh?

    [–]GammaKing 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    But Ms. Pao says that the most virulent detractors on the site are a vocal minority, and that most of Reddit users were not interested in what unfolded over the past 48 hours.

    Really?

    You shouldn't be trying to play things like this down to the media in the first place. This entire situation was completely avoidable and has been a long time coming.

    [–]AMarmot 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Maybe you should have posted what you really meant in a way that allowed you to control the message, rather than letting a third party editorialize it for maximum impact.

    If only there were some means of directly sharing thoughts with a broad community, in a way that was highly visible, and all the people who read the thoughts you shared would be self-selected as the interested parties.. huh.

    [–]CanlStillBeGarth 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    That didn't clarify anything. This post was seen just fine wasn't it?

    [–]flurpimus -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    https://www.change.org/p/ellen-k-pao-step-down-as-ceo-of-reddit-inc??

    [–]snipe_sos -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Once again, you're missing the point.

    [–]catfor -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

    There's over a thousand upvotes on that comment you linked..

    [–]joe-h2o 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

    She links to a comment (that has upvotes) that explains why people may not have seen her earlier comments (that have enormously negative karma due to brigading).

    The linked comment is not the actual comment, it's an explanation about why it appeared she talked to media first, which was what was asked.

    [–]catfor 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I think she was actually trying to link to the same quote of hers, that actually got buried because of downvoting.

    [–]joe-h2o 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Possibly, it could be a mis-link depending on what's in her clipboard buffer.

    We might get a shopping list next. Milk, eggs, moderator tools, bread.

    [–]catfor -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Her hidden sex tape,

    [–]joe-h2o -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Her hidden sex tape,

    In ASCII?

    Saucy.

    [–]sqdnguns 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Why not post it in announcements or the blog the first time around, down votes don't mean squat there.

    [–]JustCallMeBen -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Downvotes? It's at over +1000

    [–]BassheadPanda -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    but you might not have seen it because of the downvotes.

    You're not a victim here. Stop acting like one. Three times you've mentioned downvotes. Get over it.

    [–]HelveticaBOLD -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Actually deigning to speak to the Reddit community directly three days ago might've been a good way to avoid that kind of confusion, don't you think?

    [–]AmerikanInfidel -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You keep saying your comments are down voted

    But the 100's-1000's of up votes you have determines that's a lie

    [–]olivicmic -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Why is it the fault of the reporting? That was your intended message to be dismissive, as it would be for most people in your shoes. In your career you seem always to point a finger at others.

    [–]LoThro -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    /u/ekjp . This should be a good segway to talk about bringing back the old voting system. Maybe also not hide negative comments by default ?

    [–]jake_barnes -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    So snarky. Still, so snarky, even after all of this. I see 2228 up votes.

    [–]americanpagesus -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Again, why didn't you ask NYT to rectify that? It's almost as if that unclear quote was perfect for marketing purpose.

    [–]supmayte -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    what you implied with this announcement is "We get it, we put 3 people to work on it now go on creating content for us".

    You don't have a plan or deep motivation to enhance this community. If i put aside my wish to see you go out of reddit, you are still not looking good to lead reddit. Even if you think you are going to do anything different in reddit from now, MARK MY WORDS, see after a year if anything got changed, you'll see that it has turned to even worst. That's just the way with reality, you don't have good leader ship or motivation, even if you don't realize it now. I am sorry for the hatred you are getting, many people turned your awful work into personal hatred.

    [–]LithiumEnergy -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Always on the defensive, Ellen. At some point you will need to concede that your attitude towards your CEO role and the content creating community is wrong and you are unfit for the job. Not unless you are able to prove to us that you are not an entitled piece of crap who expects a $14m payout for complaining over the mildest form of gender discrimination--and believe me I am a feminist, and what you did was in fact extreme since your motives were to exploit feminism for the money not for the feminist cause.

    [–]psiphre -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

    your quote may have been unclear but the message sent by your timing wasn't.