guinness2 ago

Hi @PuttItOut, I'm pinging you because this post does seem to capture of bug in the "Hot" sorting algorithm.

Titus-of-Voat ago

I came over here as I'm seeing the same problem.

Over on /v/baseball our second post is 23 days with 3 upvoats. We have recent posts with 10 and 11 upvoats. Is there a reason these aren't being displayed higher on the 'hot' sorting, or is this a known issue?

guinness2 ago

I've been discussing the "Hot" algorithm within this post and I can't see any obvious logic to it based on age or view count.

This does seem like a bug to me.

Titus-of-Voat ago

Unfortunate too, it makes subs look less active than they are.

guinness2 ago

This is my major issue because I spend a lot of time finding content and it's a shame when it's hidden from the community.

The "Hot" algorithm was bad enough when it was just hiding new posts because they only have one default vote because that often causes them to never be seen, but I suspect this latest bug is not helping Voat's subverses to succeed, especially the smaller ones.

varialus ago

Perhaps the timing of the voats?

Germ22 ago

I have noticed this on v/all as well. Posts that are several days old, no new comment or discussion.

Torkimadi ago

Is it views based and not score based?

guinness2 ago

No, it doesn't seem to be.

I drew an arrow pointing from a lower post to a higher post and the lower post has 14 view (it has 3 comments) and the higher post only has 10 views.

BB-3 ago

It may have to do with the fact that downvotes are disabled on every post after 7 days. So if it gets any attention, it's upvotes or an error message. This means that a single upvote has a lot of power on a low-rated post after its first week, especially if the post didn't really get many downvotes. I think this could also be a ccp/scp strategy for spammers, to make a bunch of almost unnoticed posts, then go back a week later with alts and push them up when they can't be downvoted.