Out of the 37,000 people who voted for posts or comments in the last month, the 10 most prolific voters (0.02% of us) cast as many votes as the bottom 59%. Here's how that looks, visually:
As you can see, a lot of people didn't cast many votes. Someone cast 23k votes, with a group of 13 each casting at least 10k votes.
"But of course most people aren't really engaged, most of those 37k people are just NPCs who don't really matter" you say, "Rimu you're just including them to make it seem worse than it is", you might say. Ok, cool, let's pretend the bottom 85% of us don't matter and just look at the top 5000 voters. Here's how the distribution looks among them:
Still super unbalanced. Let's analyze this a bit.
Among those 5000, the top 147 (2.94%) cast as many votes as all the others (4853 people) combined. Among those 5000, the average number of votes cast in a month is 1142. Among the top 147, the average number of votes cast in a month is 6868.
How do you feel about a tiny group having this much influence over what news you receive?
If they are real people manually voting, then by all means they shouldn't be limited by built-in assumptions.
At the same time, at a rate of 750 votes a day, even someone spending 16 hours a day on Lemmy would only have 76.8 seconds per vote to read a headline, read the article (ideally), and interact with the post, before immediately going to the next one.
While many posts don't need that much time for a complete interaction, much more likely under the scenario of such mass voting is many votes with minimal to no interaction. If someone is using Lemmy to that extent, I would encourage them to redirect some of their voting efforts into thinking of more things to post or comment, as interaction—beyond just voting—is the beating heart of any such platform.
The votes could also be on comments. 750 per day still seems kind crazy when you break it down like that, but that's literally one account.
The top 147 accounts average about 229 votes per day, and the top 5000 average about 38.
That's not that unreasonable...
I agree that most cases are going to just be active users, and such activity should be encouraged, not discouraged.
As a well-designed bot can mimic (to an extent) the activity of a real user, however, I think it's still important to ensure that all such users aren't interacting with others in an automated manner, or otherwise consistently engaging in mass-voting or brigading.
Yeah I mean any account with that much activity is gonna highlight itself on a platform this small. It should be easy enough for admins to look at them case-by-case to see if their activity is bot-like.
Instances can ban obvious bot accounts and brigadiers. If an instance refuses to address a problem account or is a sanctuary for problem accounts, other instances can defederate from those.
Overall this seems like a non-issue here. This isn't reddit. Maybe in the future it'll be a bigger problem though
Average or Median?
Exactly!