Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

gspence comments on Issues, Bugs, and Requested Features - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 February 2009 04:45PM

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

Comments (628)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: gspence 27 February 2009 09:30:30PM -1 points [-]

Having a "Karma Score" seems out of place on a site focused on rationality.

Sure, I'd like to know if my participation is valued by the others on the board. Let's not call it Karma though.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 27 February 2009 09:47:07PM 4 points [-]
Comment author: thomblake 27 February 2009 09:45:58PM 2 points [-]

Why? While "Karma" doesn't translate directly to "cause and effect", it's a related concept and basically captures what we're going for. In addition, it's already a jargon term on these sorts of systems.

Are you just against it because it "sounds mystical"?

Comment author: gspence 28 February 2009 04:30:20PM -1 points [-]

Not because it sounds mystical. Because the Bhuddist concept of reincarnation does not pertain here.

Yes it's common jargon. But can we be Less Wrong?

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 02 March 2009 07:25:43AM 2 points [-]

This is an example of why we need a "disagree" button separate from a "low quality" button.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 March 2009 09:34:28AM 2 points [-]

Why do we need "disagree" as a button? Buttons filter content, and so should rate for attention, you upvote what you want other people to read and downvote what you don't want them to read. In this case, for example, the case of disagreement should result in a reply comment and upvoting of original comment.

Comment author: Benja 02 March 2009 04:01:02PM *  3 points [-]

Because if the person who modded you up had written a "me too" post instead and the three people who modded gspence down had all written "me not" posts, we would have four essentially content-free posts clobbering up the thread.

Yes, maybe you can make a point that people should either make a new point or not speak at all, because just stating an opinion may be likely to be biased. But (a) I don't think it's going to work -- saying that what happened to gspence's comment isn't what should happen doesn't change the fact that it did happen with the current model; and (b), well, I'd like to state my "me too"/"me not"! :-) Yes, if not stating opinions really does significantly debias, that would outweigh that concern, but I'm pretty skeptical about that actually happening, so the expected utility from the agree/disagree buttons wins out for me.

Comment author: thomblake 02 March 2009 06:07:55PM 2 points [-]

I had been against 'agree/disagree' buttons but this discussion has convinced me. It is pretty obvious that 'vote up/vote down' is being used as 'agree/disagree' under the current model, and adding buttons for that as well as an explanation of how to use them ("Never vote up / down a comment on the basis of agreeing or disagreeing") should fix that problem.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 02 March 2009 07:17:28PM 2 points [-]

"Me too" is vacuous if it doesn't add to original comment, while "I disagree" is supposed to contribute the explanation of why. The second "I disagree" which doesn't add anything may support the first disagreeing comment in addition to the original comment.