Wei_Dai comments on Agree, Retort, or Ignore? A Post From the Future - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (84)
As a starting point, I'd be satisfied with getting this feature proposal implemented, and just having a norm that says that every comment that presents a contrary argument should have either an explicit reply or a disagreement status indicator set by the author of the parent of that comment, with common sense exceptions.
I realize that it might not work as well as I hope, or might even make things worse, but the cost seems low enough (compared to the potential benefits, especially if the idea catches on elsewhere) to be worth a try. It would be easy to turn the feature off if it turns out not to help.
There's the cost to implement it and the cost to use it, and neither is trivial. A fine idea for fans to try, but not ready as a norm for non-fans.
The cost to use it is, on the face of it, at most a couple of mouse clicks. How could that be higher than the benefit of letting every reader know why the conversation ended? Perhaps I'm leaving out some hidden costs here, in which case, what do you think they are?
As for the cost to implement, I volunteer to code the feature myself, if I can get a commitment that it will be accepted (and if someone more qualified/familiar with the codebase doesn't volunteer).
How do you propose to evaluate whether this feature, if and when implemented, has achieved the desired aim (or made things worse) ?
I don't have any good ideas here, and guess that it will have to be a judgment call. We agree that the karma system has made things better, right? I hope this change will have an effect that's similarly obvious.