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

MBlume comments on Where are we? - Less Wrong

24 Post author: ciphergoth 02 April 2009 09:51PM

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

Comments (292)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: MBlume 03 April 2009 03:17:09AM 3 points [-]

cipher and I removed the upvotes from our own comments since we were making lots of comments to give structure to the thread, and did not feel it was fair for us to earn karma from them.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 April 2009 06:16:17AM 0 points [-]

Don't worry about it, we'll get rid of karma for self-upvotes later.

Comment author: komponisto 03 April 2009 06:24:16AM 4 points [-]

So (in other words) you want to require actual upvotes (from others) to earn karma, rather than merely avoiding downvotes. Are you sure this is a good idea?

Why shouldn't one's own vote count?

Comment author: Emile 03 April 2009 08:03:45AM 7 points [-]

Because right now user karma correlates more strongly with post count than with post quality. You get what you measure, so that needs to be fixed.

Comment author: komponisto 04 April 2009 01:44:04AM 2 points [-]

But why shouldn't it correlate with post count? That way the incentive structure encourages active participation; under the system Eliezer prefers, people might be tempted to hold back.

Is this there a need to correct things in this direction? Are we getting too many low-quality posts and comments?

(I also think that the automatic self-upvote makes sense on the grounds that making a comment should itself be considered a statement about what sort of comments the user would like to see more of. If not, the user can always undo the upvote.)

Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 04 April 2009 01:52:21AM 4 points [-]

But why shouldn't it correlate with post count? That way the incentive structure encourages active participation; under the system Eliezer prefers, people might be tempted to hold back.

That depends on whether or not total karma is supposed to indicate anything meaningful. As is, it will mostly indicate how early a member joined and how active they've been.

Comment author: Emile 04 April 2009 07:34:37AM 3 points [-]

But why shouldn't it correlate with post count? That way the incentive structure encourages active participation; under the system Eliezer prefers, people might be tempted to hold back.

Since comments tend to get upvoted more often than downvoted, why would people hold back? A comment's 'expected karma' would still be positive :)

We can still add an extra "post count" to a user's profile if anybody needs to know that.

And no, I don't think that this site is glutted with low-quality comments, but it's young and I already can't keep track of all that's being said, so a gentle nudge in the "quality over quantity" direction would be a Good Thing.

Comment author: ciphergoth 03 April 2009 08:05:50AM 1 point [-]

Unless you're confident that later will be soon, it still seems to make sense to work around the system for now.

BTW, MBlume, nice bit of mind reading, I was impressed by that!

Comment author: MBlume 03 April 2009 08:10:58AM 0 points [-]

lol, thanks =)

Comment author: steven0461 03 April 2009 12:22:56PM *  0 points [-]

I downvoted a few comments on the same principle yesterday, but I see those have been repaired. Hope people didn't take it as disapproval.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 03 April 2009 12:36:33PM 3 points [-]

Okay seriously, don't worry about this, it'll get fixed eventually and then we don't want to have to run back and change everything back around. A few points of temporary karma are not important.