= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AnnaSalamon comments on Issues, Bugs, and Requested Features - 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 (628)
A second question about the semantics of voting: should I be up-voting all good posts regardless of score, and down-voting all bad posts regardless of score, or should I be voting to correct points-numbers that are misaligned with post quality?
Upon reflection, I'd say we should be voting to correct points-numbers that are misaligned with post quality. Otherwise, if people continue to up-vote more posts than they down-vote, comments will accumulate more and more points the older they get, and a setting like "show me all posts above 3" won't be meaningful across threads or comment-ages.
Added: The "odd social dynamics" point is good. I'll follow Eliezer and thomblake here.
I would actually say that voting to correct post-quality would lead to some odd social dynamics. I'll vote up if something is negative for no reason, but otherwise I'll vote my opinion, not corrections - unless something seems really out of line.
I'd rather have the sum of people's individual components then see everyone trying to correct everyone else's voting.
Agreed - I've been using voting the same way:
if (score < 0 && myPreferredScore >=0)
vote up
else
vote my conscience
Edit: had to camelCase the name above due to odd behavior of underscores. I should learn MarkDown.