Well, first off I have no problem with karma serving me. Doesn’t it serve you too?
Second, it IS feedback. If you make more than one comment, you get to see what gets upvotes and what gets downvotes. If you make a lot of comments, you get a sense for what people approve of and what people disapprove of, and insofar as that correlates to quality you get a sense of how to make quality comments. Not every comment deserves other users expending their time providing constructive criticism, and I don’t see why it’s necessarily better that people spend their time responding in ways that are good for YOU instead of good for them.
The only times I downvote are when I think the poster is being deliberately rude or cruel, but I don’t like doing that and would rather have a moderator take care of what I see as a dirty job. And unless a post is exceptionally uninteresting, I upvote posts simply as a way of keeping track of those I’ve already read. So no, it doesn’t serve me very well, and the use I make of it is not conductive to prOtherwise, I don’t use it, because I’m not interested in punishing posts simply because I don’t enjoy seeing them here. I do reward posts that teach me something I didn’t know.oper feedback. When I really like what someone does, I go and tell them. When I really don’t like it, I tell them. The threshold of like is smaller than that of dislike. All in all, I’d be happier and more comfortable if the upvote-downvote system didn’t exist, and the threads were linear rather than in trees.
and insofar as that correlates to quality you get a sense of how to make quality comments
That’s a pretty big if; one poster’s quality standards may be very different from another, and may not deserve to be called “quality” standards at all. In fact, they might be downright contemptible. If people disapprove of me for unworthy reasons, I do not want them to hold power over me.
and I don’t see why it’s necessarily better that people spend their time responding in ways that are good for YOU instead of good for them.
When you downvote, you’re merely pushing away stuff you don’t like. When you tell people what is wrong, they’ll be quicker and more effective at correcting what they do. Said people will also propose reasons for or against stuff that are actually avowable in public, which gives a better guarantee that those reasons be good rather than petty.
And since that’s a lot of trouble, I honestly prefer systems where there are a few moderators and some very strict rules of conduct, and people who misbehave are swiftly punished according to those rules. Giant In The Playground are fora that have formalized this very well IMHO, and the contents in there may not always be thrilling and excellent, but they are never bad, because bad stuff gets punished, and the punishments are always explained and justified.
I honestly prefer systems where there are a few moderators and some very strict rules of conduct, and people who misbehave are swiftly punished according to those rules. Giant In The Playground are fora that have formalized this very well IMHO, and the contents in there may not always be thrilling and excellent, but they are never bad, because bad stuff gets punished, and the punishments are always explained and justified.
As a reference point: when someone pseudo-stalked me on the GitP fora back in the day, I spoke to a mod, who applied straightforward algorithms to the situation, added up points, and banned the offender. It worked very well, at least within the context of the site.
Well, first off I have no problem with karma serving me. Doesn’t it serve you too?
Second, it IS feedback. If you make more than one comment, you get to see what gets upvotes and what gets downvotes. If you make a lot of comments, you get a sense for what people approve of and what people disapprove of, and insofar as that correlates to quality you get a sense of how to make quality comments. Not every comment deserves other users expending their time providing constructive criticism, and I don’t see why it’s necessarily better that people spend their time responding in ways that are good for YOU instead of good for them.
The only times I downvote are when I think the poster is being deliberately rude or cruel, but I don’t like doing that and would rather have a moderator take care of what I see as a dirty job. And unless a post is exceptionally uninteresting, I upvote posts simply as a way of keeping track of those I’ve already read. So no, it doesn’t serve me very well, and the use I make of it is not conductive to prOtherwise, I don’t use it, because I’m not interested in punishing posts simply because I don’t enjoy seeing them here. I do reward posts that teach me something I didn’t know.oper feedback. When I really like what someone does, I go and tell them. When I really don’t like it, I tell them. The threshold of like is smaller than that of dislike. All in all, I’d be happier and more comfortable if the upvote-downvote system didn’t exist, and the threads were linear rather than in trees.
That’s a pretty big if; one poster’s quality standards may be very different from another, and may not deserve to be called “quality” standards at all. In fact, they might be downright contemptible. If people disapprove of me for unworthy reasons, I do not want them to hold power over me.
When you downvote, you’re merely pushing away stuff you don’t like. When you tell people what is wrong, they’ll be quicker and more effective at correcting what they do. Said people will also propose reasons for or against stuff that are actually avowable in public, which gives a better guarantee that those reasons be good rather than petty.
And since that’s a lot of trouble, I honestly prefer systems where there are a few moderators and some very strict rules of conduct, and people who misbehave are swiftly punished according to those rules. Giant In The Playground are fora that have formalized this very well IMHO, and the contents in there may not always be thrilling and excellent, but they are never bad, because bad stuff gets punished, and the punishments are always explained and justified.
As a reference point: when someone pseudo-stalked me on the GitP fora back in the day, I spoke to a mod, who applied straightforward algorithms to the situation, added up points, and banned the offender. It worked very well, at least within the context of the site.
Thank you, Alicorn, that was helpful and I appreciate it.