> That's a problem with any site that threads comments and sorts by score.

The parent to my comment pointed out a corner case with scoring that he felt was specific to Reddit, if I recall, and I replied to indicate that such a problem is inherent to sorting/scoring at all and not Reddit itself. Since I made that reply (which actually gives Reddit credit as saying said assertion isn't specific to them), the parent edited to say something else, and I'm not sure how to grok it.

Rather than delete and look extra shady, I decided to leave that there. I'm glad I did, because your edit here in response to that speaks volumes as to why you chose to respond as you have.

First, I'm well aware of how sorting works on Reddit. I've deployed my own copy of Reddit's code and successfully brought it up, and I've manipulated the code and looked around in it (I'm a Python developer by trade).

Second, one of the problems inherent to text is that meaning can be lost, very easily. I wrote the comment to mean "that's inherent to the style of commenting Reddit chose, not Reddit per se". That's a comment regarding a concept far abstract from specifics of Reddit's voting constraints - it's a comment addressing the concepts of threading and scoring themselves.

You took my statement as "Reddit has that problem, and it sucks because". I apologize that I wasn't completely crystal clear about what I meant.

Even after rereading what I wrote, I cannot see how the way you've taken it could be considered what I intended -- you're really reading a meaning that you want to read, because you want to pick a fight over someone disparaging Reddit. I was a regular contributor to Reddit for several months and realize its value. I think it's a great community. You're not being a great representative of it at the moment, but that's your choice, not theirs.

Since you edited out 'slander', I'll put it back:

> naive cheapshot slander on Reddit

Even with the aforementioned misunderstanding, which is somewhat forgiveable, jumping to slander is a bit much. You know this because you edited it out. I'd ask the courtesy in the future of assuming the best in people, and not accusing them of torts when there's any ambiguity to meaning that you might have missed.

Please don't take me as some white knight of reddit, I think that we may agree more than I originally understood. I took your comment as a dismissal of reddit purely on the basis of voting. I apologize as it seems that may not have been your intention. I merely sought to explain the other mechanisms that reddit uses, in addition to the automatic (imo) value of subreddits, to determine the value of content.

>I'd ask the courtesy in the future of assuming the best in people, and not accusing them of torts when there's any ambiguity to meaning that you might have missed.

You're of course correct. As you noted, I editted my comment as I tried to take a more understanding ground. I'm not used to people reading so quickly. I have a tendency to rephrase and uh, un-embelish, after a second or third evaluation of the thread. I do apologize.

Though, I suppose in the end, I still simply don't understand the alternative to voting on content and I feel like the directed subreddits are add relevancy to those votes. The alternative is all moderated or selected content? A community where comments can be killed (ahem)? I guess I like the anarchist communal democracy, even if it ends up that a bunch of Internet kiddies want revenge for a tortured cat. In my mind, at the very least ideologically, it's always superior to the alternative.

What if we, as a community, decided that deliberately trying to float with highly rated comments by posting completely unrelated "responses" is not something we'll tolerate, and downvoted violators, regardless of the insightfulness of the comment? Tangential responses are something more of a gray area, but I'm willing to let them be voted upon on their own merits.

I don't find this to be the case at all... though I do find it to be the assumption made by many who don't actually use reddit. I just checked the top few threads to ensure I don't have confirmation bias (heh, though I understand the futility of such an exercise). Reddit is VERY good about not letting people piggy back on top posts and their "best" algorithm does not sort according to score. It sorts according to how those who voted generally vote, and based on how the majority has voted, both up and down, regardless of overall positive or negative score for the post.

The notion that replies are contextual relevant to their parent comment on reddit is a TESTAMENT to my original claim:: That reddit does a good job of exposing, even new posts, in inundated threads.

(As usual, it surprises me how much if the "our community is better that there" rhetoric goes on here, while simultaneously, we seem to mock that idea of communities making that judgemental statement.)

edit: And even so, is it a bad thing if non-relevant intriguing content is upvoted? Just click the [-] if you don't want to see it... but that's the very nature of discussion. Things go off topic and humanity learns as a result.