= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Open Thread: July 2010, Part 2 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (770)
That makes sense for evaluating the cost/benefit to me of reading a post. But if I want to evaluate the overall cost/benefit of the post itself, I should also take into account the number of people who read one vs. the other. Given the ostensible purpose of karma and promotion, these ought to be significantly different.
Are you saying: (1) A bad post is less likely to be read because it will not be promoted and it will be downvoted; (2) Because bad posts are less read, they have a smaller cost than good posts' benefits?
I think I agree with that. I had not considered karma and promotion, which behave like advertisements in their informational value, when making that comment.
But I think that what you're saying only strengthens the case against moderators' deleting posts against the poster's will because it renders the objectionable material less objectionable.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
And I'm not attempting to weaken or strengthen the case against anything in particular.