= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MinibearRex comments on Rationalist horoscopes: A low-hanging utility generator. - 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 (77)
Wouldn't this system doom a horoscope if the first person to ever get it didn't see anything valuable in it, even if other people would have found it more beneficial?
The functional solution to this issue at the moment is having several people see the horoscope on the same day - if three people are watching the feed, and one votes 'unhelpful' and the other two vote 'sort of helpful', the horoscope stays in the active pool, even if the 'unhelpful' vote comes in first. It does give whoever votes on a horoscope the first time it comes up an unusual amount of influence, but hopefully it'll be balanced enough for horoscopes to stick around long enough for a few rounds of voting.
Maybe horoscopes should start at more than zero points when first created, or should never be removed if they have fewer than a certain quorum of votes.