wedrifid comments on Open Thread: February 2010 - Less Wrong

1 Post author: wedrifid 01 February 2010 06:09AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (738)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Alicorn 02 February 2010 02:15:46AM *  15 points [-]

Since Karma Changes was posted, there have been 20 top level posts. With one exception, all of those posts are presently at positive karma. EDIT: I was using the list on the wiki, which is not up to date. Incorporating the posts between the last one on that list and now, there is a total of 76 posts between Karma Changes and today. This one is the only new data point on negatively rated posts, so it's 2 of 76.

I looked at the 40 posts just prior to Karma Changes, and of the forty, six of them are still negative. It looks like before the change, many times more posts were voted into the red. I have observed that a number of recent posts were in fact downvoted, sometimes a fair amount, but crept back up over time.

Hypothesis: the changes included removing the display minimum of 0 for top-level posts. Now that people can see that something has been voted negative, instead of just being at 0 (which could be the result of indifference), sympathy kicks in and people provide upvotes.

Is this a behavior we want? If not, what can we do about it?

Comment author: wedrifid 02 February 2010 09:44:15AM 6 points [-]

Is this a behavior we want?

No. It is not difficult to create a top level post that is approved of or at least kept at '0'. I want undesirable top level posts to hurt.

If not, what can we do about it?

Replace all '-ve' karma value displays of top level posts with '- points' or '<0 points'. We don't necessarily need to know just how disapproved of a particular post is.

Comment author: MrHen 08 February 2010 10:12:17PM 0 points [-]

It helps me as an author. -1 is a significant difference from -5.

Comment author: wedrifid 09 February 2010 02:54:11AM 3 points [-]

Easily solved technically. Show actual figures to the author.

Comment author: MrHen 09 February 2010 05:15:35AM 0 points [-]

Agreed.