The current points on this post are 19. I happen to remember that the count used to be higher (not sure how much higher) so I think that the recent arguments have brought the total down some [fair enough]. This is all side information that I do not have direct access to except by memory. It tells me that the voting is mixed, but isn’t very precise.
What decisions would having more precise information impact and how would it change your decision?
Questioning votes is a way to get answers that can lead to self-improvement and not just to “faction-based” outcomes. Again this is a question of balance.
Questioning net downvotes can to self-improvement. But individual votes are really noisy by themselves. People vote for all kinds of reasons, few of which need to impact what kind of comments. And unless you get a lot and they are unexpected it’s unlikely that learning why someone downvoted you is worth the time, page space and distracting everyone else.
<Actually, don’t you see how ironic it is that you’re using this argument at this particular point in the thread? This post is subordinate to a comment I made that said:
Why is this downvoted twice? No wonder he’s concerned about it. Sheesh.
Which was on behalf of wedrifid’s point, which is largely your point. Wedrifid’s post now has “+4” points. I think this represents a dynamic of social thinking that is unhealthy without policing. [I have something drafted about policing, but based on what I’ve learned in this post, it’s not ready for mainstream consumption on this site. This is another pertinent kind of inhibition, really.]
Wedrifid can correct me if I’m wrong, but I really doubt he cared that much about the −2 (or if he did care he didn’t want to care). It’s hard to when you have 20,000 in total karma. Policing of any kind requires effort. Karma, like anything else, can be over-policed. And like other things that are not of great significance any policing is often more trouble than it is worth. The point of karma is a) a collective moderation tool (mainly this involves downvoting spammers and trolls), b) a loose indicator of status to encourage effortful and intelligent contributions.
Wasn’t the first sequence post about a “dojo”? This site is, as far as I can tell, the public dojo.
Yeah, this is a good point. The problem is, it isn’t just that. And that’s part of why individual upvotes and downvotes in many cases don’t signal much—people want different things from the site and vote accordingly. If enough people see a comment that noise will get lost and you’ll get a pretty good estimate of the quality of the comment. An individual comment that is net downvoted can be noise as well. I have plenty of negative comments, as does wedrifid. Much of the time I deserve them but sometimes it’s just a matter of my having information community doesn’t have and not communicating it well, different priors or talking about something others don’t care about. Overtime that noise gets washed away (think of all the comments that are voted up way more than they are worth, i.e. this)
I’m not at all against discussing changes to the site structure to make it better. I think there are a lot of things that people have agreed would improve the site but are slow to come about for coding reasons. You might try looking through some of the older meta threads and see what was discussed then.
That seems like a new and valid way to make wedrifid’s point.
I have an undeveloped intuition that building the site that way hurts the content of the site, not just me. But I’m not sure about that.
What decisions would having more precise information impact and how would it change your decision?
Questioning net downvotes can to self-improvement. But individual votes are really noisy by themselves. People vote for all kinds of reasons, few of which need to impact what kind of comments. And unless you get a lot and they are unexpected it’s unlikely that learning why someone downvoted you is worth the time, page space and distracting everyone else.
<Actually, don’t you see how ironic it is that you’re using this argument at this particular point in the thread? This post is subordinate to a comment I made that said:
Wedrifid can correct me if I’m wrong, but I really doubt he cared that much about the −2 (or if he did care he didn’t want to care). It’s hard to when you have 20,000 in total karma. Policing of any kind requires effort. Karma, like anything else, can be over-policed. And like other things that are not of great significance any policing is often more trouble than it is worth. The point of karma is a) a collective moderation tool (mainly this involves downvoting spammers and trolls), b) a loose indicator of status to encourage effortful and intelligent contributions.
Yeah, this is a good point. The problem is, it isn’t just that. And that’s part of why individual upvotes and downvotes in many cases don’t signal much—people want different things from the site and vote accordingly. If enough people see a comment that noise will get lost and you’ll get a pretty good estimate of the quality of the comment. An individual comment that is net downvoted can be noise as well. I have plenty of negative comments, as does wedrifid. Much of the time I deserve them but sometimes it’s just a matter of my having information community doesn’t have and not communicating it well, different priors or talking about something others don’t care about. Overtime that noise gets washed away (think of all the comments that are voted up way more than they are worth, i.e. this)
I’m not at all against discussing changes to the site structure to make it better. I think there are a lot of things that people have agreed would improve the site but are slow to come about for coding reasons. You might try looking through some of the older meta threads and see what was discussed then.
I have an undeveloped intuition that building the site that way hurts the content of the site, not just me. But I’m not sure about that.