= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Will_Newsome comments on How do you interpret your "% positive"? - 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 (51)
Higher % is better. Duh.
Coming from almost anyone else on this site, I would take a comment like this at face value without further thought.
Coming from you, I find I have roughly equal confidence that you mean it at face value, that you mean it ironically to express its opposite, and that you mean it to be taken at face value despite in fact meaning the opposite. For that matter, I have non-negligible (though significantly lower) confidence that you mean it to cause precisely this confusion in long-time readers.
I thought you might appreciate knowing that.
Keeping karma fixed, lower % is certainly more impressive.
Not necessarily, given that the average score of comments is positive. If you want at least 300 net 30-day karma regardless of % positive, you just need to post a lot, but if you want at least 300 net 30-day karma and 95% positive, you have to be particularly thoughtful about what you write.
Or just stick to posting witty things in the quote and MoR threads.
I disagree.
This from the same person who used to go around saying how he didn't care if his comments were downvoted, and that extremely negative karma comments were frequently as interesting as high karma comments.
Will doesn't seem to be trolling lately.
Yeah, this puzzled me.
Interesting. Last time Will was posting regularly, he made a big deal about wanting to destroy his own reputation and implied he might be interacting with some kind of basilisks and/or superhuman entities of unknown friendliness.
With an 'all else being equal' in there somewhere.