“Agree: Do you think the content of this comment is true? (Or if the comment is about an emotional reaction or belief of the author, does that statement resonate with you?)”
It sure is a mouthful, but it feels like it points towards a coherent cluster.
I think the thing Duncan wants is harder to formulate than this, it has to disallow voting on aspects of the comment that are not about factual claims whose truth is relevant. And since most claims are true, it somehow has to avoid everyone-truth-upvotes-everything default in a way that retains some sort of useful signal instead of deciding the number of upvotes based on truth-unrelated selection effects. I don’t see what this should mean for comments-in-general, carefully explained, and I don’t currently have much hope that it can be operationalized into something more useful than agreement.
Hmm, what about language like
“Agree: Do you think the content of this comment is true? (Or if the comment is about an emotional reaction or belief of the author, does that statement resonate with you?)”
It sure is a mouthful, but it feels like it points towards a coherent cluster.
I think the thing Duncan wants is harder to formulate than this, it has to disallow voting on aspects of the comment that are not about factual claims whose truth is relevant. And since most claims are true, it somehow has to avoid everyone-truth-upvotes-everything default in a way that retains some sort of useful signal instead of deciding the number of upvotes based on truth-unrelated selection effects. I don’t see what this should mean for comments-in-general, carefully explained, and I don’t currently have much hope that it can be operationalized into something more useful than agreement.