Vladimir_Nesov comments on Voting etiquette - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (36)
I believe the behavior is mostly as follows. If the comment is voted neutral (currently, 1 point), people only upvote or downvote if they feel strongly about whether it's good or bad (according to whatever valuation). If the comment is already upvoted or downvoted, people are more likely to cast an opposite vote if they feel that the comment is rated incorrectly (in the wrong direction), to "fix" its rating. Thus, if someone upvotes a 0-point comment, it doesn't mean that the comment is considered worthy of an upvote (to reach, say, 9 points), it only means that the person thought that it didn't deserve a downvote from 1 point.
Thus, there seems to be 2 modes of voting: hard voting and soft voting.
Yes. The quandary seems, to me, that the voting system is designed for hard voting, but in practice more people are using soft voting.
So the solution is either to change the system's design, or change the user's behavior? The latter seems unlikely, so what would a system designed to utilize soft voting look like?
Hacker News solved the problem by not displaying comment karma, except to the owner of the comment.