I don’t see any simple way to ‘fix’ that—it has the potential to be gamed but I don’t think gaming the system in that respect is a major problem here
It’s not so much a potential to be gamed, as encouraging people to post without thinking things through, as well as misleading readers as to which arguments are correct. I don’t know if there is a simple fix or not, but if we can agree that it’s a problem, then we can at least start thinking about possible solutions.
Maybe you don’t think karma should be awarded for attributes other than correctness. If so, go ahead and bring it up and see what the rest of the community thinks.
In a case where a comment is both funny and incorrect, I think we should prioritize the correctness. After all, this is “Less Wrong”, not “Less Bored”.
If I didn’t recognize your username as a regular and generally high-value contributor I might not have given you the benefit of the doubt on that.
I was too lazy to find another example, and counting on the benefit of the doubt. :)
ETA: Also, I think being upvoted for supporting the majority opinion is clearly a strong reason for what happened, especially in Exhibit B, where the comment is deep in the middle of a thread, and has no humor value.
It’s not so much a potential to be gamed, as encouraging people to post without thinking things through, as well as misleading readers as to which arguments are correct.
I’m not sure that’s true. As I originally said, the first comment in a thread often gets karma of greater absolute magnitude. Bad posts get voted down more harshly as well as good posts getting voted up more. I think the higher readership for top level comments explains this. It means that from a karma-gaming perspective posting a top level comment is only a good move if you are confident it will be received positively.
In a case where a comment is both funny and incorrect, I think we should prioritize the correctness.
How about other attributes not directly related to correctness? How should niceness be judged relative to correctness for example?
I still think there’s a conflict between you wanting people to give more upvotes to things that are correct but fewer to things that ‘agree with the majority opinion’. I don’t think people upvote because a comment ‘agrees with the majority opinion’, they upvote because a comment agrees with their opinion. That tends to produce greater upvotes for the majority view. In your second example I think the greater upvotes for James Andrix reflect the fact that he is more correct. Your real complaint seems to be that the majority opinion is wrong on this issue. The best way to fix that is to make a better argument for the other view, not to complain that people are failing to recognize correct arguments and upvote them.
It’s not so much a potential to be gamed, as encouraging people to post without thinking things through, as well as misleading readers as to which arguments are correct. I don’t know if there is a simple fix or not, but if we can agree that it’s a problem, then we can at least start thinking about possible solutions.
In a case where a comment is both funny and incorrect, I think we should prioritize the correctness. After all, this is “Less Wrong”, not “Less Bored”.
I was too lazy to find another example, and counting on the benefit of the doubt. :)
ETA: Also, I think being upvoted for supporting the majority opinion is clearly a strong reason for what happened, especially in Exhibit B, where the comment is deep in the middle of a thread, and has no humor value.
I’m not sure that’s true. As I originally said, the first comment in a thread often gets karma of greater absolute magnitude. Bad posts get voted down more harshly as well as good posts getting voted up more. I think the higher readership for top level comments explains this. It means that from a karma-gaming perspective posting a top level comment is only a good move if you are confident it will be received positively.
How about other attributes not directly related to correctness? How should niceness be judged relative to correctness for example?
I still think there’s a conflict between you wanting people to give more upvotes to things that are correct but fewer to things that ‘agree with the majority opinion’. I don’t think people upvote because a comment ‘agrees with the majority opinion’, they upvote because a comment agrees with their opinion. That tends to produce greater upvotes for the majority view. In your second example I think the greater upvotes for James Andrix reflect the fact that he is more correct. Your real complaint seems to be that the majority opinion is wrong on this issue. The best way to fix that is to make a better argument for the other view, not to complain that people are failing to recognize correct arguments and upvote them.