Do we have (long-term) members with near 50% karma?
Not many. The average controversial poster (by my totally-not-objective-at-all standards) seems to hover around 70%, with only a few people below that and usually not by much; preliminary and non-rigorous investigation points toward total karma ratios of between 73% and 66%, weighted towards the high end, plus one outlier in the mid-50s. There are a couple of less-well-established individuals closer to parity, but it seems that striking a close balance between approval and disapproval and developing thick enough skin to stick around anyway is harder than it sounds.
It might be interesting to note that of those I looked up, almost everyone had 30-day karma ratios lower than their total karma ratios: 60% wasn’t unusual. I don’t know if this points toward more recent controversy or a tendency for people to grow more outspoken or more contrarian over time.
almost everyone had 30-day karma ratios lower than their total karma ratios
One factor that contributes to this, but I am not sure how large part of the effect it explains: Downvoted articles disappear after a while, while upvoted articles remain visible. Therefore recent bad articles cost karma, but old bad articles don’t; while both recent and old good articles can get upvotes. It’s a bit similar with comments; when they are collapsed, probably people are less likely to look at them.
Please note that 30-day karma means recent votes on recent contributions—it does not include recent votes on old contributions. And I suspect the “recent votes on old contributions” is biased towards positive, because the old bad contributions disappear.
There’s also the question of one poster having two very different types of posts.
My comments in which I simply inject biology or astronomy information tend to get massive levels of upvotes, while my posts on other topics have a tendency to be more controversial than my averaged 87% positive would indicate. I’m unable to separate the two to give hard numbers, unfortunately.
It might be interesting to note that of those I looked up, almost everyone had 30-day karma ratios lower than their total karma ratios: 60% wasn’t unusual. I don’t know if this points toward more recent controversy or a tendency for people to grow more outspoken or more contrarian over time.
Mine is down to 62% due to some block-downvoting in the last couple of weeks, so that could be another reason. Or is this what you mean by “recent controversy”?
Nah, I was talking more about the recent rash of posts on demographics and related topics in Stranger than History, the reactions to Eliezer’s mass social engineering speculation in the April Fools’ post, and a few other similar events. Though now that you mention it, people do seem to have grown a bit more trigger-happy with downvotes in recent months, block and otherwise.
I am inclined to believe that the more recent controversy may be a factor. It’s the first time I’ve been block downvoted, so I’m inclined to believe that there’s been an increase in that kind of activity.
Not many. The average controversial poster (by my totally-not-objective-at-all standards) seems to hover around 70%, with only a few people below that and usually not by much; preliminary and non-rigorous investigation points toward total karma ratios of between 73% and 66%, weighted towards the high end, plus one outlier in the mid-50s. There are a couple of less-well-established individuals closer to parity, but it seems that striking a close balance between approval and disapproval and developing thick enough skin to stick around anyway is harder than it sounds.
It might be interesting to note that of those I looked up, almost everyone had 30-day karma ratios lower than their total karma ratios: 60% wasn’t unusual. I don’t know if this points toward more recent controversy or a tendency for people to grow more outspoken or more contrarian over time.
One factor that contributes to this, but I am not sure how large part of the effect it explains: Downvoted articles disappear after a while, while upvoted articles remain visible. Therefore recent bad articles cost karma, but old bad articles don’t; while both recent and old good articles can get upvotes. It’s a bit similar with comments; when they are collapsed, probably people are less likely to look at them.
Please note that 30-day karma means recent votes on recent contributions—it does not include recent votes on old contributions. And I suspect the “recent votes on old contributions” is biased towards positive, because the old bad contributions disappear.
There’s also the question of one poster having two very different types of posts.
My comments in which I simply inject biology or astronomy information tend to get massive levels of upvotes, while my posts on other topics have a tendency to be more controversial than my averaged 87% positive would indicate. I’m unable to separate the two to give hard numbers, unfortunately.
Mine is down to 62% due to some block-downvoting in the last couple of weeks, so that could be another reason. Or is this what you mean by “recent controversy”?
Nah, I was talking more about the recent rash of posts on demographics and related topics in Stranger than History, the reactions to Eliezer’s mass social engineering speculation in the April Fools’ post, and a few other similar events. Though now that you mention it, people do seem to have grown a bit more trigger-happy with downvotes in recent months, block and otherwise.
I am inclined to believe that the more recent controversy may be a factor. It’s the first time I’ve been block downvoted, so I’m inclined to believe that there’s been an increase in that kind of activity.