Preliminary Voting Phase (2 weeks, Dec 4 — 17): We identify posts especially worthy of consideration in the review casting preliminary votes. Posts with 2 preliminary votes move into the Discussion Phase
[...]
These will be your preliminary votes for the 2022 review. Posts need to get at least 2 preliminary votes (positive or negative) in order to move to the next phase of the review.
Suppose I think a post is misleading or bad. Is the intended approach here that I negative vote in the preliminary phase and then (possibly) write a negative review?
Posts also need at least 2 positive votes to get into the Review Phase, so you can wait to see if it seems overrated before putting the effort into a negative review. (although if you think it was already overhyped and want to correct the record anyway, that sound fine too)
I discussed this with Oli and he argued that negative votes were also typically strong evidence that the post was worth reviewing. I was persuaded by the argument that it means someone out of their way to say “there is something actively badabout this post and I really think it should not get a high score”, and that probably means that a review of what’s bad about the post would be worthwhile to read (that I would learn something interesting or valuable from it).
I certainly buy that as an argument, but don’t know that it’s obviously worth prioritizing before checking that anyone actively cared about it positively. Lots of posts are bad, you can’t cover all of them.
I have the experience when voting in the review that I don’t vote on most posts, and my negative votes only go on importantly bad posts. Empirically I don’t expect people will downvote anywhere near all of ~4500 posts written in 2022, and I think the 10-20 that people will downvote have a ~100x chance relative to baseline of being worth reviewing. (Perhaps 100x is a bit strong but 30x seems reasonable to me.)
I think that’s a good policy and making it explicit (by writing something about it in the announcement posts) would be even better. Then when people know that a downvote in the preliminary voting phase means “This is bad and we should pay attention to that”, they’ll be more likely to use downvotes that way.
It should be easy, although I am worried that will result in the review phase being even more overwhelming than it usually is, and the benefit doesn’t seem that great to me.
I would be really surprised if it added more than 4 posts to the review, and I am confident that at least 2 of those posts would seem really important for you and me to indeed be reviewed.
It current adds 128 posts (query I just ran was “has at least 1 positive vote” vs “has at least 2 positive votes”. I’m not 100% sure what query you were planning)
I don’t really get why it’s worth reviewing bad posts that don’t have at least 2 people who think they’re good. (I buy that posts that at least some people think were good but are controversial might be interesting/important)
Sorry, but that’s a totally different query that has nothing to do with what I said? What I said is let’s add posts with at least two reviews, whether positive or negative? So you should compare “has at least 2 positive votes” to “has at least 2 non-zero votes”.
Negative votes have a ton of information in them! It means someone thought it was worth spending points sending an active signal that they thought the post was bad. For example, if everyone who votes thinks the Waluigi post, or the Simulators post, is bad, it would be terrible for us to not review them, given the importance they had in the discourse nevertheless.
Suppose I think a post is misleading or bad. Is the intended approach here that I negative vote in the preliminary phase and then (possibly) write a negative review?
Posts also need at least 2 positive votes to get into the Review Phase, so you can wait to see if it seems overrated before putting the effort into a negative review. (although if you think it was already overhyped and want to correct the record anyway, that sound fine too)
I discussed this with Oli and he argued that negative votes were also typically strong evidence that the post was worth reviewing. I was persuaded by the argument that it means someone out of their way to say “there is something actively bad about this post and I really think it should not get a high score”, and that probably means that a review of what’s bad about the post would be worthwhile to read (that I would learn something interesting or valuable from it).
I certainly buy that as an argument, but don’t know that it’s obviously worth prioritizing before checking that anyone actively cared about it positively. Lots of posts are bad, you can’t cover all of them.
I have the experience when voting in the review that I don’t vote on most posts, and my negative votes only go on importantly bad posts. Empirically I don’t expect people will downvote anywhere near all of ~4500 posts written in 2022, and I think the 10-20 that people will downvote have a ~100x chance relative to baseline of being worth reviewing. (Perhaps 100x is a bit strong but 30x seems reasonable to me.)
I think that’s a good policy and making it explicit (by writing something about it in the announcement posts) would be even better. Then when people know that a downvote in the preliminary voting phase means “This is bad and we should pay attention to that”, they’ll be more likely to use downvotes that way.
(Flagging it’s still technically required to get 2 positive votes to proceed to review phase)
(I am currently planning to change that before the start of the review phase, unless it turns out to be hard for some reason)
It should be easy, although I am worried that will result in the review phase being even more overwhelming than it usually is, and the benefit doesn’t seem that great to me.
I would be really surprised if it added more than 4 posts to the review, and I am confident that at least 2 of those posts would seem really important for you and me to indeed be reviewed.
It current adds 128 posts (query I just ran was “has at least 1 positive vote” vs “has at least 2 positive votes”. I’m not 100% sure what query you were planning)
I don’t really get why it’s worth reviewing bad posts that don’t have at least 2 people who think they’re good. (I buy that posts that at least some people think were good but are controversial might be interesting/important)
Sorry, but that’s a totally different query that has nothing to do with what I said? What I said is let’s add posts with at least two reviews, whether positive or negative? So you should compare “has at least 2 positive votes” to “has at least 2 non-zero votes”.
Negative votes have a ton of information in them! It means someone thought it was worth spending points sending an active signal that they thought the post was bad. For example, if everyone who votes thinks the Waluigi post, or the Simulators post, is bad, it would be terrible for us to not review them, given the importance they had in the discourse nevertheless.
Yep! That’s what I would do.