Slashdot Mirror
One Percent of Reddit Users Cause 75 Percent of the Drama (theoutline.com)
Just 1 percent of all Reddit communities set off 74 percent of all conflicts on the site, a new research has found. The Outline: In the self-published research from Srijan Kumar, Jure Leskoec, William Hamilton, and Dan Jurafsky of Stanford University, "intercommunity conflict" is defined as "negative sentiment to comment in another community." These users wouldn't necessarily qualify as trolls or sockpuppets; they're instigators, posting links to other subreddits and encouraging other users to target, harass, and fight with users on that subreddit.
Sadly, 74% actually seems low to me. - Just say'n....
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
..causes all the drama. The rest of us just make memes about it.
Sent from my TARDIS
A few people ruin it for all of us.
If they did this for a day or two, it would be the fault of that one percent of the users. After a month or two it would be the fault of the Reddit moderators and owners for putting up with the one percent of the users. After many years, all the remaining users are now to blame for putting up with the Reddit moderators and owners who put up with the one percent of the users.
The people that did this study are probably part of that 1% group trying to point fingers at other 1% members by blaming them for the drama?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Reddit discovers internet trolls are a thing.
Tries to claim they're something new and different this time.
Usenet, 4chan, et al. not mad, just disappointed.
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
This is at least as old as the British Empire.
"Hey, let's you and him fight. (While I sit over here actually running everything.)"
Nope, no sig
Let me guess, 99% of that 1% are SRS regulars aren't they?
I hope no one paid money for this study because this is a 'water is wet' fact right here. I'd love to know what dirt they've got on Spez to get away with breaking the rules the way they do.
when all is said and done, all a man has left are his blades and his honor.
After all, the percentage of drama went down 1% between the time msmash wrote the title and the time he started writing the summary. It's probably already at zero percent drama at this point.
#DeleteFacebook
bullshit. It's self-published research. In other words, poor methodology, questionable statistics, and conclusions unsupported by even a cursory look at their data. Note that it's only referenced by the Outline, a self-described "digital media company focused on power, culture and the future." No reputable journal would even look at this nonsense.
And pointing this out makes me their 1%. According to their "paper," the above observation means I'm toxic.
Is this the trash that makes it on Slashdot these days?
1% of the Reddit users have 90% of the comments/posts that solicit debate and controversy. The other 99% spend all their time in pseudo-intellectual masturbation and patting each other on the back in a self-congratulatory echo chamber!
large subs, with lots of readers seem to have way more trolls per capita than the small technical or special interest subs.
There is probably also another converse rule, that for the most part about 1% of users actually creates useful posts, and the rest just cut and paste memes or just reading, never posting anything. Or they're sock puppets...
It's also just 1% drama-queens.
People will criticize each other, grow up.
I could not find a definition of 'conflict' in this research.
Only: "examining cases where users of one community are mobilized by negative sentiment to comment in another community."
Wow, that included normal criticism, is this thought control?
Of course it's fine for a platform like Reddit to manage disagreements between communities.
But calling it a 'conflict' is ridiculous.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
The same can be said for this site. Man, SOME people are SO annoying!
> Less than 1% of the population are NRA members. 15% of the U.S. population votes Republican
So gun enthusiasts and Republicans are the problem. Without them, life would be good. OK.
These users wouldn't necessarily qualify as trolls or sockpuppets; they're instigators, posting links to other subreddits and encouraging other users to target, harass, and fight with users on that subreddit.
For those of us old enough to remember what the word "troll" used to mean back in the usenet days, that sounds exactly like what we used to call a troll. Of course now the term has been adopted by the mainstream media, the meaning has changed to mean more someone that causes offence or attacks others.
I think it's time that we reintroduce an old concept, Ostracism .
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The Internet? The entire public space — off and online — is like that. In a reasonably free society, at least. And always has been...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I think it's indisputable that a small number of people create the majority of chaos in any social circle. However, I've observed an increasing percentage of online participants that cannot ignore anything they disagree with (yes, this is a behavior with a long and glorious tradition https://xkcd.com/386/ ).
Everyone seems to be so damn serious these days and no incursion against our beliefs can remain unchallenged (exacerbated by the fact that sarcasm is easily missed when it's in written form). The 1% want drama and we give it to them. The oldest counsel is best: Don't Feed The Trolls.
Sometimes I want a discussion without Drama or Comedy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/?i...
We all allow the few to screw things up for the rest of us.
80% of the problems are caused by 20% of the people.
Then there are the 1% ers.
Pareto Principle. Roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Reddit seems extreme, but it's not unusual.
Well, the Pareto principle you quote is a factor of (one in) five. This is a factor of a hundred. I'd say that's extreme, yes.
Can anyone think of something where this doesn't apply?
since you seem to define "this" as meaning "X percent of the input causes Y percent of the output," I'd say that this is always true
Link to the actual work, instead of an article commenting on it:
abstract
Community Interaction and Conflict on the Web
I could not find a definition of 'conflict' in this research.
The actual paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.036... states:
Thus: conflict is defined as cases where (crowdsourced) evaluators label a sentiment toward the source post as negative, rather than neutral or positive.
So much of research and news is rediscovering that many real world effects are Pareto/exponential distributions. Also known as variations of the 20-80 rule, 20 (can be 10, 30) percent of X cause 80 (can be 70, 90) percent of Y. The important point is that a few actors cause many effects. True in crime statistics, auto accidents, network internet traffic, income and wealth distributions, GDP (20 percent of countries produce 80 percent of GDP), customers and sales or profit, etc, etc. 1 percent of Reddit users and 74 percent of conflict is Pareto/ exponential equivalent to 20 percent of users cause 90 percent of conflict. If schools taught everyone statistics, and along with the binomial distribution the exponential/ Pareto distribution, we would see a lot fewer reports of the few causing many. Just as we do not see stories about the normal distribution of effects around the average.
Only 1.1% of all reddit users ever write something to start with.
the_donald. at what point do you kill cancer? immediately. unless you're reddit.
I've only ever looked at that place a couple times, and what I saw there was a mess to have to wade through, and the sort of content/conversations I was looking for were the same crap you'd find anywhere else.
First off, why the hell are you directing traffic to a bullshit aggregator when the original paper is RIGHT THERE?
Second, wtf are they talking about? Ah: "examining cases where users of one community are mobilized by negative sentiment to comment in another community." ie, "Brigading" for anyone not in the know.
Third, The paper never mentions "Drama", they're exclusively talking about this sort of conflict that comes from brigading. IE, 1% of reddit communities do the brigading thing. (Because that's what they can track. Of course they can't track all drama in Reddit, it'd just be a list of all posts)
Fourth, The paper says 1% of communities, not 1% of users. Which is, kind of a DUH statement. There are topics which are political and those who are dedicated towards shifting other people's opinions, but most aren't. Nobody in ELI5 is going to be wing-nut extremist educationalist rousing the masses to explain, en-mass, complex topics in simple terms to other communities.
This is why you don't link to a bullshit opinion pieces re-interpreting a paper. Does slashdot even have editors anymore?
That's exactly what percentages are for, so it's not disingenuous at all.
Can I just say, I told you so? We just had this discussion when the article came up about the CEO of Reddit scripting his own site to change posts. People accused specific pages on Reddit of being full of trolls. I disagreed and said that its very few people who cause trouble. All the CEO had to do was ban these people and it would have actually addressed the problem.
considering 99% are lurkers
Contrarians? Thinkers? Debaters? Those willing to ask questions and challenge the status quo.
Heck perhaps none of these things, perhaps they simply have a difference of opinion?