Explanations are useful, especially to new members. But sometimes I just don’t know what to say… something rubs me the wrong way, but the inferential distance may be too large to explain why.
An example: here is a new user’s first post. I feel like it is obviously bad but… if you can shortly and clearly explain why, please go ahead and do it, because I can’t.
In my mind, the entire proposal translates as “we should solve the coordination problem by coordinating to solve the problem”, which is like “duh, if we were able to do that, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place”. It feel internally incoherent, like “we should treat information with military-grade security” but also “people should be incentivized to provide this information by getting access to the information provided by others”, which again is “this is not how military-grade security works”, plus the obvious ways to hack such incentive system like “provide lots of mostly useless information”. But when I write it this way, it feels like a strawman, and maybe it is, I am not sure.
I try to provide verbal feedback, but sometimes it is too difficult. And also, I do not really want to spend 30 minutes thinking about an optimal explanation for downvoting an article which already has negative karma. But also I am aware that the new user who makes the first post and gets downvoted without explanation is probably curious why. :(
EDIT:
Probably a meta-advice for new users: do not write too long articles; if your argument can be split into multiple steps, post them separately. Then you are more likely to get useful feedback.
Possible moderation policy: New users should have length limit on their articles. With the explanation why we want then to split complex arguments into multiple steps.
Though, reading that linked article again.. actually that one sounds like one step, so this probably wouldn’t help. Ok, I’m giving up.
My post wasn’t about providing verbal feedback to the author. It was about writing comments that help create shared norms about what should be downvoted.
“I’m downvoting this comment because it argues against a strawman” is a way to promote the norm of voting down strawmen. Building a shared understanding about what sort of writing should be downvoted because it violates that norm is useful.
Wait. Are you thinking that this is necessary to ENCOURAGE more downvotes, or to EXPLAIN to newbies (or help them predict; same thing) why they get downvoted?
These are different outcomes, and likely need different solutions.
Neither. If you look at the Said/Duncan conflict, different established users have different beliefs about what the norms should be. Writing long posts about norms is one way to have a discussion that develops shared understanding about norms. Being explicit about why one casts votes in individual cases is another way to develop a shared understanding about norms.
Now I’m feeling bait-and-switched. The first benefit listed in the post is “It’s a great onboarding tool for new users to help them understand the site’s expectations and what sets it apart from other forums”, and many of the comments talk about new users. That’s a TOTALLY different issue than the Said/Duncan posting styles, which is going to take a nuanced and judgement-filled moderation/voting system, not a one-size-fits-all official guideline.
That’s the first benefit listed, but the second is:
It provided a recognized standard that both moderators and other users can point to and uphold, e.g. by pointing out instances where someone is failing to live up to one of the norms
Instead of having a fixed standard to point to, I think it’s better to naturally evolve norms and do that by people being explicit about their views when they vote.
I agree it often feels hard to point out why things aren’t good, even when they clearly. My experience is that I’ve gotten better at this with practice, and the mod team has been collecting typical reasons and explanations things aren’t good. I think we’ll share these soon (and you’ll see them applied), which might help other people be able to articulate which things aren’t good either.
Explanations are useful, especially to new members. But sometimes I just don’t know what to say… something rubs me the wrong way, but the inferential distance may be too large to explain why.
An example: here is a new user’s first post. I feel like it is obviously bad but… if you can shortly and clearly explain why, please go ahead and do it, because I can’t.
In my mind, the entire proposal translates as “we should solve the coordination problem by coordinating to solve the problem”, which is like “duh, if we were able to do that, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place”. It feel internally incoherent, like “we should treat information with military-grade security” but also “people should be incentivized to provide this information by getting access to the information provided by others”, which again is “this is not how military-grade security works”, plus the obvious ways to hack such incentive system like “provide lots of mostly useless information”. But when I write it this way, it feels like a strawman, and maybe it is, I am not sure.
I try to provide verbal feedback, but sometimes it is too difficult. And also, I do not really want to spend 30 minutes thinking about an optimal explanation for downvoting an article which already has negative karma. But also I am aware that the new user who makes the first post and gets downvoted without explanation is probably curious why. :(
EDIT:
Probably a meta-advice for new users: do not write too long articles; if your argument can be split into multiple steps, post them separately. Then you are more likely to get useful feedback.
Possible moderation policy: New users should have length limit on their articles. With the explanation why we want then to split complex arguments into multiple steps.
Though, reading that linked article again.. actually that one sounds like one step, so this probably wouldn’t help. Ok, I’m giving up.
My post wasn’t about providing verbal feedback to the author. It was about writing comments that help create shared norms about what should be downvoted.
“I’m downvoting this comment because it argues against a strawman” is a way to promote the norm of voting down strawmen. Building a shared understanding about what sort of writing should be downvoted because it violates that norm is useful.
Wait. Are you thinking that this is necessary to ENCOURAGE more downvotes, or to EXPLAIN to newbies (or help them predict; same thing) why they get downvoted?
These are different outcomes, and likely need different solutions.
Neither. If you look at the Said/Duncan conflict, different established users have different beliefs about what the norms should be. Writing long posts about norms is one way to have a discussion that develops shared understanding about norms. Being explicit about why one casts votes in individual cases is another way to develop a shared understanding about norms.
Now I’m feeling bait-and-switched. The first benefit listed in the post is “It’s a great onboarding tool for new users to help them understand the site’s expectations and what sets it apart from other forums”, and many of the comments talk about new users. That’s a TOTALLY different issue than the Said/Duncan posting styles, which is going to take a nuanced and judgement-filled moderation/voting system, not a one-size-fits-all official guideline.
That’s the first benefit listed, but the second is:
Instead of having a fixed standard to point to, I think it’s better to naturally evolve norms and do that by people being explicit about their views when they vote.
I agree it often feels hard to point out why things aren’t good, even when they clearly. My experience is that I’ve gotten better at this with practice, and the mod team has been collecting typical reasons and explanations things aren’t good. I think we’ll share these soon (and you’ll see them applied), which might help other people be able to articulate which things aren’t good either.