= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taw comments on Your Price for Joining - 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 (53)
I would like to believe that's what I'm doing, and I think I'm fooling myself. It's enough if our thresholds for up/downvote are different for comments we agree and disagree, something like:
As most comments are in this not completely brilliant and not complete rubbish category, this is quite close to upvote on agree, downvote on disagree.
In principle, I suppose there could be multi-dimensional voting, with at least different dimensions for degree of agreement, for how well-argued a comment is, and for degree of relevance to the topic (or at least sub-thread). Of course, if one goes far enough down that road just choosing the multidimensional vote starts to become an energy drain in and of itself... (www.ted.com has at least 8 dimensions for rating their talks - which is enough to dissuade me from rating them...)