But it’s really confusing for my models of the post.
Cause there is a real difference between (lots of 2-users voted on this vs. a few 5-users voted on this). Those feel very different to me, and I’d adjust my views accordingly as to whether the post was, in fact, successful.
I get that you’re trying to make “lots of 2-users” and “a few 5-users” basically amount to the same value, which is why you’re scaling it this way.
But if a post ACTUALLY only has 2-users upvoting it and almost no 5-users, and other posts have 5-users voting on it but very few 2-users, that seems … worth noting.
Although, you could prob achieve the same by publishing an analysis of upvote/downvote patterns.
You could, for instance, release a list of posts, ranked by various such metrics. (Ratio of low:high user votes. Ratio of high:low user votes. Etc. Etc.)
Although, you could prob achieve the same by publishing an analysis of upvote/downvote patterns.
You could, for instance, release a list of posts, ranked by various such metrics. (Ratio of low:high user votes. Ratio of high:low user votes. Etc. Etc.)
This seems neat and probably worth doing, although this seems like even more interpretive effort than “mouseover to see how many votes of each type you got.”
Not sure how it’s a one-time cost? I was assuming the list of posts only comes out every so often, so every time you want to know the results for a new post you have to wait for such a list and then check it, and then you’d have to check it again for each new post you’ve written.
(If you were imagining the list-of-posts getting continuously updated, that doesn’t seem much different than simply providing the “number of votes (upvotes?) metadata on hoverover, in addition to or instead of the number of strong upvotes”. And while we could do either of those things, the main thing I was getting at is “we’re hesitant to make the goodhartable number the most easily accessible one.”)
I was assuming the list comes out once → I learn enough to understand what types of posts get what voting patterns (or, I learn that the data doesn’t actually tell me very much, which might be more likely), but after that I don’t need any more lists of posts.
I don’t care if it has my own posts on it, really. I care more about ‘the general pattern’ or something, and I imagine I can either get that from one such list, or I’ll figure out I just won’t get it (because the data doesn’t have discernible patterns / it’s too noisy).
That makes sense.
But it’s really confusing for my models of the post.
Cause there is a real difference between (lots of 2-users voted on this vs. a few 5-users voted on this). Those feel very different to me, and I’d adjust my views accordingly as to whether the post was, in fact, successful.
I get that you’re trying to make “lots of 2-users” and “a few 5-users” basically amount to the same value, which is why you’re scaling it this way.
But if a post ACTUALLY only has 2-users upvoting it and almost no 5-users, and other posts have 5-users voting on it but very few 2-users, that seems … worth noting.
Although, you could prob achieve the same by publishing an analysis of upvote/downvote patterns.
You could, for instance, release a list of posts, ranked by various such metrics. (Ratio of low:high user votes. Ratio of high:low user votes. Etc. Etc.)
That would be interesting!
This seems neat and probably worth doing, although this seems like even more interpretive effort than “mouseover to see how many votes of each type you got.”
I prefer the one-time cost vs the many-time cost.
Not sure how it’s a one-time cost? I was assuming the list of posts only comes out every so often, so every time you want to know the results for a new post you have to wait for such a list and then check it, and then you’d have to check it again for each new post you’ve written.
(If you were imagining the list-of-posts getting continuously updated, that doesn’t seem much different than simply providing the “number of votes (upvotes?) metadata on hoverover, in addition to or instead of the number of strong upvotes”. And while we could do either of those things, the main thing I was getting at is “we’re hesitant to make the goodhartable number the most easily accessible one.”)
I was assuming the list comes out once → I learn enough to understand what types of posts get what voting patterns (or, I learn that the data doesn’t actually tell me very much, which might be more likely), but after that I don’t need any more lists of posts.
I don’t care if it has my own posts on it, really. I care more about ‘the general pattern’ or something, and I imagine I can either get that from one such list, or I’ll figure out I just won’t get it (because the data doesn’t have discernible patterns / it’s too noisy).
Oooohh gotcha that makes total sense.