= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on Meta: Karma and lesswrong mainstream positions - 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 (43)
My tentative explanation is that it's not actually generating as much interest as you suggest.
Rather, there are a small number of people generating a vast number of comments that don't seem to generate any useful progress, and thus don't garner much karma.
Admittedly I'm mostly generalizing from my own experience here... that kind of volume: content ratio is not something I want to see more of (and is, indeed, something I'd like to see less of), and the low karma scores seem consistent with the idea that other people are like me in this respect.
That said, I could be wrong... it may be that lots of other people find that dialog worthwhile, that I'm the exception, and that the karma scores have some other explanation I haven't thought of.
To the extent (A) that votes on X's comments/posts reflect other people's desire to have stuff like those comments/posts on this site, and to the extent (B) that X cares about other people's desires, X should care about votes.
Of course, extent A is difficult to determine with confidence, and extent B is a consequence of X's values. For myself, I estimate A to be fairly high, and B is pretty high for me, so I care about votes and I think I should care about them.
I've obtained a delta of about +100 karma in this discussion. So this explanation seems wrong.
Fair enough... if that's coming from a small number of highly-ranked comments, that is indeed evidence that a lot of people are interested in the exchange. (If it's a large number of low-ranked comments, it's equally consistent with a small number of people who endorse your engagement in it.)
Thanks for the counterargument.
That seems like an accurate assessment. At present this comment http://lesswrong.com/lw/54u/bayesian_epistemology_vs_popper/3uqx is at +8 and this comment http://lesswrong.com/lw/54u/bayesian_epistemology_vs_popper/3usd is at +13 but the second comment also got linked to in a separate thread. No other comment of mine in that discussion has upvoted to more than 5. That data combined with your remark above suggests that your initial remark was correct.