I’ve been wondering if karma is really a good system, for exactly that reason. I think I’ve only had a comment down-voted in to the negatives once, so I can reasonably predict that any vaguely ‘quality’ comment is likely to make my karma go up. I’d think it better to encourage users who produce “+10 karma” comments, not those who produce ten “+1 karma” posts.
Of course, as a simple bar to “unlock” privileges, it works well, but then you could just have it show “50+” once everything is unlocked.
And on the gripping hand, it does encourage me to try and cement my thoughts and speak up any time I feel I have something to contribute :)
This is an entirely reasonable concern. But the comments are generally the highest quality I can think of on almost any forum. So I’d say it’s certainly not broken.
Comment quality was approximately as high on Overcoming Bias before the founding of Less Wrong, and there was no voting on OB.
Voting did greatly reduce the need for editors to moderate comments. In particular, part of the reason that comment quality was extremely high on Overcoming Bias is that Eliezer moderated comments on Eliezer’s posts and Robin moderated comments (with a heavier hand in my experience than Eliezer did BTW) on Robin’s posts, and if voting had not been introduced (by Eliezer, the Future of Humanity Institute and Tricycle Development) Eliezer would have stopped moderating comments so that he could use the time and mental energy for other pursuits.
Note that Eliezer stopped posting (or more precisely drastically reduced the volume of his writing on the site) about 3 months after the introduction of voting.
Although it is unlikely that comment quality would have stayed high after Eliezer stopped posting and moderating if voting had never been introduced, it is extremely unlikely that voting by itself would have produced a community capable of the quality of conversation we see on LW today. In other words, the nature of the core content was the cause of the excellence of the community although the introduction of voting gave the community a mechanism to prevent the rapid deterioration of the community after Eliezer became uninterested in continuing to post daily and to moderate.
Voting by itself is not a particularly robust quality-protection mechanism IMHO. In particular, a sharp increase in new LW users has the potential to cause a catastrophic decrease in comment quality IMHO.
Voting by itself is not a particularly robust quality-protection mechanism IMHO. In particular, a sharp increase in new users has the potential to cause a catastrophic decrease in comment quality IMHO.
Oh yeah. It’s not a bulletproof shield, even slightly. I’m saying that I see no reason that tweaking it would actually make the place better.
I wasn’t familiar with the details of just how well the tone was set, thank you!
I’ve been wondering if karma is really a good system, for exactly that reason. I think I’ve only had a comment down-voted in to the negatives once, so I can reasonably predict that any vaguely ‘quality’ comment is likely to make my karma go up. I’d think it better to encourage users who produce “+10 karma” comments, not those who produce ten “+1 karma” posts.
Of course, as a simple bar to “unlock” privileges, it works well, but then you could just have it show “50+” once everything is unlocked.
And on the gripping hand, it does encourage me to try and cement my thoughts and speak up any time I feel I have something to contribute :)
This is an entirely reasonable concern. But the comments are generally the highest quality I can think of on almost any forum. So I’d say it’s certainly not broken.
Comment quality was approximately as high on Overcoming Bias before the founding of Less Wrong, and there was no voting on OB.
Voting did greatly reduce the need for editors to moderate comments. In particular, part of the reason that comment quality was extremely high on Overcoming Bias is that Eliezer moderated comments on Eliezer’s posts and Robin moderated comments (with a heavier hand in my experience than Eliezer did BTW) on Robin’s posts, and if voting had not been introduced (by Eliezer, the Future of Humanity Institute and Tricycle Development) Eliezer would have stopped moderating comments so that he could use the time and mental energy for other pursuits.
Note that Eliezer stopped posting (or more precisely drastically reduced the volume of his writing on the site) about 3 months after the introduction of voting.
Although it is unlikely that comment quality would have stayed high after Eliezer stopped posting and moderating if voting had never been introduced, it is extremely unlikely that voting by itself would have produced a community capable of the quality of conversation we see on LW today. In other words, the nature of the core content was the cause of the excellence of the community although the introduction of voting gave the community a mechanism to prevent the rapid deterioration of the community after Eliezer became uninterested in continuing to post daily and to moderate.
Voting by itself is not a particularly robust quality-protection mechanism IMHO. In particular, a sharp increase in new LW users has the potential to cause a catastrophic decrease in comment quality IMHO.
Oh yeah. It’s not a bulletproof shield, even slightly. I’m saying that I see no reason that tweaking it would actually make the place better.
I wasn’t familiar with the details of just how well the tone was set, thank you!