You might want to move this to the discussion section, then; unadorned links like this are generally not considered appropriate to the main LW section.
(You can move it by editing the article, then changing where it’s being published to.)
The main page is for things we think of sufficient quality that they’re worth the time and cognitive effort of reading. Is this worth an hour of your time to read? If not, it should be downvoted to invisibility.
It’s worth noting in general that the ‘main page’ is actually the ‘promoted’ page, which requires an admin to move you there. But you’re right, the article is also not visible on the ‘new’ page either.
Unfortunately, this attitude and your decision to put this in main rather than the discussion section is getting it downvoted. That will likely continue. Moreover, downvotes for main section articles hurt a lot more than downvotes in the discussion section. I strongly urge you to move this into the discussion section where it will be considered a much more reasonable post.
Everyone who downvotes links posted in the main section because they think it’s a cheap way to get karma—you can just choose not to vote for them. Thus, trying to discourage people from posting to the main page for karma reasons is trying to make karma voting decisions for other LWers.
Karma is supposed to indicate which articles and comments are worth reading. Karma doesn’t function to tell people whose opinions to respect, so people should stop worrying that other people are getting easy karma. Trust me—I have 15,000 karma, and people don’t cut me any more slack than when I had none.
Curi’s karma has repeatedly dropped low enough that his posting rate is moderated. If that’s going to happen then it should occur based on the quality of posts not to him being socially tone-deaf about community norms of where to post things.
(Incidentally, there’s another reason to downvote short link posts and the like in the main section- some people just have the RSS feed for the main posts and don’t want every little link to show up).
Curi’s karma has repeatedly dropped low enough that his posting rate is moderated. If that’s going to happen then it should occur based on the quality of posts not to him being socially tone-deaf about community norms of where to post things.
That’s Curi’s decision.
(Incidentally, there’s another reason to downvote short link posts and the like in the main section- some people just have the RSS feed for the main posts and don’t want every little link to show up).
Okay—a valid reason.
I would still like to say that, when considering whether to impose a social norm against posting certain things on the main page, saying that you think they’re unworthy of karma is not a good reason, because (a) karma point accumulation to users beyond getting enough to post does not give them any advantage, and (b) you can choose not to vote, and therefore you can object only because you don’t trust the judgement of other users on LW and so would like to deprive them of the freedom to vote for such articles.
This may not have been your reason, but this seemed like a good place to make my point.
Unfortunately, this attitude and your decision to put this in main rather than the discussion section is getting it downvoted. That will likely continue.
It didn’t. It made it back up to a score of 0.
Learn anything? Or since you only said “likely” will you say that your prediction isn’t contradicted by the result. Is never actually being contradicted by evidence one of the main appeals of only saying stuff is likely instead of conjecturing that it’s true?
Scores in the negative are kept track of despite not being displayed, however. In particular, people with negative karma have a commenting frequency limit, whereas people with zero karma do not.
Scores for total karma are displayed as zero if they are negative. Scores for individual articles can be negative (and in fact it is back to −1). I have various hypotheses about why the score has moved up but I’m waiting to gather more evidence before I state them.
I don’t want to bias the reactions.
You might want to move this to the discussion section, then; unadorned links like this are generally not considered appropriate to the main LW section.
(You can move it by editing the article, then changing where it’s being published to.)
Yep. I would downvote this, but it’s already invisible on the top-level page.
The main page is for things we think of sufficient quality that they’re worth the time and cognitive effort of reading. Is this worth an hour of your time to read? If not, it should be downvoted to invisibility.
As of now and when I first saw the post appear on the sidebar, it is/was invisible on the main page and visible only through the sidebar.
Yup.
It’s worth noting in general that the ‘main page’ is actually the ‘promoted’ page, which requires an admin to move you there. But you’re right, the article is also not visible on the ‘new’ page either.
Unfortunately, this attitude and your decision to put this in main rather than the discussion section is getting it downvoted. That will likely continue. Moreover, downvotes for main section articles hurt a lot more than downvotes in the discussion section. I strongly urge you to move this into the discussion section where it will be considered a much more reasonable post.
Everyone who downvotes links posted in the main section because they think it’s a cheap way to get karma—you can just choose not to vote for them. Thus, trying to discourage people from posting to the main page for karma reasons is trying to make karma voting decisions for other LWers.
Karma is supposed to indicate which articles and comments are worth reading. Karma doesn’t function to tell people whose opinions to respect, so people should stop worrying that other people are getting easy karma. Trust me—I have 15,000 karma, and people don’t cut me any more slack than when I had none.
Curi’s karma has repeatedly dropped low enough that his posting rate is moderated. If that’s going to happen then it should occur based on the quality of posts not to him being socially tone-deaf about community norms of where to post things.
(Incidentally, there’s another reason to downvote short link posts and the like in the main section- some people just have the RSS feed for the main posts and don’t want every little link to show up).
That’s Curi’s decision.
Okay—a valid reason.
I would still like to say that, when considering whether to impose a social norm against posting certain things on the main page, saying that you think they’re unworthy of karma is not a good reason, because (a) karma point accumulation to users beyond getting enough to post does not give them any advantage, and (b) you can choose not to vote, and therefore you can object only because you don’t trust the judgement of other users on LW and so would like to deprive them of the freedom to vote for such articles.
This may not have been your reason, but this seemed like a good place to make my point.
It didn’t. It made it back up to a score of 0.
Learn anything? Or since you only said “likely” will you say that your prediction isn’t contradicted by the result. Is never actually being contradicted by evidence one of the main appeals of only saying stuff is likely instead of conjecturing that it’s true?
As far as I know, the minimum possible karma is zero; scores below that are, IIRC, displayed as zero.
Scores in the negative are kept track of despite not being displayed, however. In particular, people with negative karma have a commenting frequency limit, whereas people with zero karma do not.
Scores for total karma are displayed as zero if they are negative. Scores for individual articles can be negative (and in fact it is back to −1). I have various hypotheses about why the score has moved up but I’m waiting to gather more evidence before I state them.
The circle displaying your karma can’t display negative scores.