It is interesting in kind of the same way that some people have quite a lot more up-votes than the others. The same threshold preventing downvotes prevents upvotes below.
Gwern (79) and Vaniver (66) show significantly more upvotes than the next in line (gwern was initially also one of those who didn’t get a downvote when the others did). If upvotes are handed out according to the rule and logically in order of occurrence the vots should roughly read n, n-1, n-2, … but they don’t. Quite some people upvote only their favorite LWers. A little bit of coalition politics or fan-boying on LW after all.
Gwern (79) and Vaniver (66) show significantly more upvotes than the next in line
That is interesting! I think some of Gwern’s upvotes are coming from people who agree with his “Basilisk” comment / found it because of the discussion it generated, but I suspect the two of us are having some sort of name recognition effect. For everyone else it does look roughly like people upvoting everyone who took the survey the last time they checked: before writing this comment, I’d upvoted everyone before 3:30am server time on the 26th, but it seems like those before and after that line are both about low 30s. I think there’s also a factor of people not loading all the comments- otherwise we wouldn’t expect the oldest comment to be lower than the early bulk of comments.
That is interesting! I think some of Gwern’s upvotes are coming from people who agree with his “Basilisk” comment / found it because of the discussion it generated
It didn’t seem self-evident to me that his mention of the basilisk would help his comment’s score overall. I don’t personally believe in the basilisk and I do think it would make an interesting survey question, but I thought many LWers considered it a dangerous idea to discuss? They may think that even if they don’t believe in it either. Or maybe Eliezer was just weird in his reaction to it. Judging based on Gwern’s comment’s 99% positive rating, that’s certainly what it looks like.
I think there’s also a factor of people not loading all the comments- otherwise we wouldn’t expect the oldest comment to be lower than the early bulk of comments.
It’s not so far off that I feel the difference can simply be attributed to people not loading all the comments. At the time of my writing this, the oldest comment has the same score as the third and fourth comments.
Gwern (79) and Vaniver (66) show significantly more upvotes than the next in line
Thanks. That’s interesting. I hadn’t noticed that. They even score higher than some people who posted earlier, and with similar quality posts.
If upvotes are handed out according to the rule and logically in order of occurrence the vots should roughly read n, n-1, n-2,
...At first I was going to say I think it would be more of an exponential decrease since most people take the survey in the first few days and I doubt many people diligently keep track of new comments, but then I remembered that the rate of new “I took the survey” comments themselves decrease exponentially, probably at a similar rate, which cancels out much of the effect. Oh well. This does make the situation less unfair.
Almost everyone has a downvote again. What’s more interesting is the short list of people who don’t…
It is interesting in kind of the same way that some people have quite a lot more up-votes than the others. The same threshold preventing downvotes prevents upvotes below.
I’m not sure I understand. I wasn’t able to find explanations by typing “upvote” into the search either. Can you please clarify?
Gwern (79) and Vaniver (66) show significantly more upvotes than the next in line (gwern was initially also one of those who didn’t get a downvote when the others did). If upvotes are handed out according to the rule and logically in order of occurrence the vots should roughly read n, n-1, n-2, … but they don’t. Quite some people upvote only their favorite LWers. A little bit of coalition politics or fan-boying on LW after all.
That is interesting! I think some of Gwern’s upvotes are coming from people who agree with his “Basilisk” comment / found it because of the discussion it generated, but I suspect the two of us are having some sort of name recognition effect. For everyone else it does look roughly like people upvoting everyone who took the survey the last time they checked: before writing this comment, I’d upvoted everyone before 3:30am server time on the 26th, but it seems like those before and after that line are both about low 30s. I think there’s also a factor of people not loading all the comments- otherwise we wouldn’t expect the oldest comment to be lower than the early bulk of comments.
It didn’t seem self-evident to me that his mention of the basilisk would help his comment’s score overall. I don’t personally believe in the basilisk and I do think it would make an interesting survey question, but I thought many LWers considered it a dangerous idea to discuss? They may think that even if they don’t believe in it either. Or maybe Eliezer was just weird in his reaction to it. Judging based on Gwern’s comment’s 99% positive rating, that’s certainly what it looks like.
It’s not so far off that I feel the difference can simply be attributed to people not loading all the comments. At the time of my writing this, the oldest comment has the same score as the third and fourth comments.
Thanks. That’s interesting. I hadn’t noticed that. They even score higher than some people who posted earlier, and with similar quality posts.
...At first I was going to say I think it would be more of an exponential decrease since most people take the survey in the first few days and I doubt many people diligently keep track of new comments, but then I remembered that the rate of new “I took the survey” comments themselves decrease exponentially, probably at a similar rate, which cancels out much of the effect. Oh well. This does make the situation less unfair.