It strikes me as a purely theoretical point—an admonition that we’re not downvoting enough.
But who knows—someone who EY has repeatedly called a ‘troll’ has been pretty consistently on the ‘top contributors’ list since near when we started here.
I doubt that’s the whole story—he doesn’t post nearly as frequently as a lot of folks around here, and if you look at his recent comment history, a lot of his comments are at about −5 or so that (as far as I can tell) would be at about a 0 if they were posted by anyone else. Seems like he’s getting unusually and inappropriately slammed with downvotes lately.
Look at it this way: it is folly to evaluate the known in terms of the unknown, while it’s necessary to evaluate the unknown in terms of the known.
It’s much, much easier to decide the value of a comment or comment history than to judge the value of how people vote for it. How many people read a comment, but don’t vote? How many positive and negative votes are there? What do we know about how insightful and wise the voting community is as a whole, and how do we determine how well the voters manifest those qualities in individual cases?
The quality of the comments is clearer—more known—than the quality of the votes. It follows that the karma system doesn’t provide us with a way to judge the comments, but a way to judge the community. Not a great way by any means, admittedly, but a method.
That may be right. People don’t just vote for comments, but also for the person. In time, the impression sunk in, which modified the baseline of voting decisions.
It strikes me as a purely theoretical point—an admonition that we’re not downvoting enough.
But who knows—someone who EY has repeatedly called a ‘troll’ has been pretty consistently on the ‘top contributors’ list since near when we started here.
Note that he’s been consistently losing Karma ever since the automatic self-upvote was turned off.
I doubt that’s the whole story—he doesn’t post nearly as frequently as a lot of folks around here, and if you look at his recent comment history, a lot of his comments are at about −5 or so that (as far as I can tell) would be at about a 0 if they were posted by anyone else. Seems like he’s getting unusually and inappropriately slammed with downvotes lately.
Look at it this way: it is folly to evaluate the known in terms of the unknown, while it’s necessary to evaluate the unknown in terms of the known.
It’s much, much easier to decide the value of a comment or comment history than to judge the value of how people vote for it. How many people read a comment, but don’t vote? How many positive and negative votes are there? What do we know about how insightful and wise the voting community is as a whole, and how do we determine how well the voters manifest those qualities in individual cases?
The quality of the comments is clearer—more known—than the quality of the votes. It follows that the karma system doesn’t provide us with a way to judge the comments, but a way to judge the community. Not a great way by any means, admittedly, but a method.
That may be right. People don’t just vote for comments, but also for the person. In time, the impression sunk in, which modified the baseline of voting decisions.