Is there a concrete proposal or problem statement we can examine? It feels like the generalities have been pretty well discussed, and we’re at the point where details and implementation is probably more useful as a predictor of impact than the high-level desiderata. Or a more concrete metric we can discuss the ranges we want to see and the goodhart risks.
A few clarifying questions for the mods (or others tempted to declare any document “official”):
Are the problem cases not being downvoted enough? Why is this orthogonal to voting?
one possible answer—harm is done before the votes start to come in.
another possible answer—users are voting wrong, or on dimensions that don’t enforce these norms.
Is this normative or positive? Are we saying that we want posts/comments to be this way and we will … do something new to enforce that? Or just clarifying and describing what gets moderated already.
Do you think the number of posts/comments is too high, too low, or just about right?
same for the distribution of posts/comments per user.
Do you think posting/commenting is a skill or a talent?
Does the median (or p25) user have any avenues for learning how to make good posts/comments other than trying it and getting feedback?
Is there a post-quality-level that doesn’t improve the site, but DOES improve the poster’s skill/knowledge enough to be able to improve the site over time?
Is the problem mostly about Said/Duncan disagreements, among long-time posters, or about newbies and noise? Or both (though why do you think the same solution applies to both problems)?
Are the problem cases not being downvoted enough? Why is this orthogonal to voting?
one possible answer—harm is done before the votes start to come in.
another possible answer—users are voting wrong, or on dimensions that don’t enforce these norms.
Approximately a. feels right to me. I dislike wasting people’s time viewing and downvoting something if I can confidently predict it. That’s for posts. For comments, there’s always a temptation to look at the downvoted ones to see what’s happening. Also a matter of volume. If 2-3% of posts get downvoted, seems fine. If it’s 20% or more, that’s a lot of pollution and I’d rather have an earlier stage of filtering.
Is this normative or positive? Are we saying that we want posts/comments to be this way and we will … do something new to enforce that? Or just clarifying and describing what gets moderated already.
I’m not familiar with that distinction. But it’s both in my thinking currently. Will have a post up soon explaining how I’m seeing it.
Do you think thenumber of posts/comments is too high, too low, or just about right?
same for the distribution of posts/comments per user.
All else equal, more is better. I think more in terms of Signal-to-Noise ratio and keeping that good.
Do you think posting/commenting is a skill or a talent?
Both.
Does the median (or p25) user have any avenues for learning how to make good posts/comments other than trying it and getting feedback?
Yes. First, reading other people’s stuff should be instructive. Also I think trying it and not posting would also help you improve just using your own taste.
Is there a post-quality-level that doesn’t improve the site, but DOES improve the poster’s skill/knowledge enough to be able to improve the site over time?
Yes, and sometimes us moderators will approve content for that reason.
Is the problem mostly about Said/Duncan disagreements, among long-time posters, or about newbies and noise? Or both (though why do you think the same solution applies to both problems)?
Said/Duncan disagreements feel rarer to me and less of a problem in a direct way. However, that conflict concerned norm enforcement and so clarifying norms helps with the noise, and also clarify things in context of accusations/claims from a conflict like that.
Is there a concrete proposal or problem statement we can examine? It feels like the generalities have been pretty well discussed, and we’re at the point where details and implementation is probably more useful as a predictor of impact than the high-level desiderata. Or a more concrete metric we can discuss the ranges we want to see and the goodhart risks.
A few clarifying questions for the mods (or others tempted to declare any document “official”):
Are the problem cases not being downvoted enough? Why is this orthogonal to voting?
one possible answer—harm is done before the votes start to come in.
another possible answer—users are voting wrong, or on dimensions that don’t enforce these norms.
Is this normative or positive? Are we saying that we want posts/comments to be this way and we will … do something new to enforce that? Or just clarifying and describing what gets moderated already.
Do you think the number of posts/comments is too high, too low, or just about right?
same for the distribution of posts/comments per user.
Do you think posting/commenting is a skill or a talent?
Does the median (or p25) user have any avenues for learning how to make good posts/comments other than trying it and getting feedback?
Is there a post-quality-level that doesn’t improve the site, but DOES improve the poster’s skill/knowledge enough to be able to improve the site over time?
Is the problem mostly about Said/Duncan disagreements, among long-time posters, or about newbies and noise? Or both (though why do you think the same solution applies to both problems)?
Approximately a. feels right to me. I dislike wasting people’s time viewing and downvoting something if I can confidently predict it. That’s for posts. For comments, there’s always a temptation to look at the downvoted ones to see what’s happening. Also a matter of volume. If 2-3% of posts get downvoted, seems fine. If it’s 20% or more, that’s a lot of pollution and I’d rather have an earlier stage of filtering.
I’m not familiar with that distinction. But it’s both in my thinking currently. Will have a post up soon explaining how I’m seeing it.
All else equal, more is better. I think more in terms of Signal-to-Noise ratio and keeping that good.
Both.
Yes. First, reading other people’s stuff should be instructive. Also I think trying it and not posting would also help you improve just using your own taste.
Yes, and sometimes us moderators will approve content for that reason.
Said/Duncan disagreements feel rarer to me and less of a problem in a direct way. However, that conflict concerned norm enforcement and so clarifying norms helps with the noise, and also clarify things in context of accusations/claims from a conflict like that.