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

Viliam_Bur comments on Proposal: Show up and down votes separately - Less Wrong Discussion

19 Post author: witzvo 09 June 2012 11:29PM

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

Comments (66)

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

Comment author: Alejandro1 10 June 2012 03:02:25PM 2 points [-]

My preference would be just two numbers: total number of votes N (up plus down) and total positive score P (up minus down). Advantages:

  • Two simple, direct measures of the two main things one might care about: how much interest a post generated, and how well received it was.

  • Keeps the current karma score as one of the two variables.

  • Doesn't include new things more difficult to calculate with such as ratios

  • No redundant information; number of ups and downs can be easily calculated if wanted as one half of the sum and of the difference of N and P.

  • However, does not display explicitly the number of downvotes, for those who don't care to know it. Most of the time, I wouldn't. I might be too inclined to start wondering the reason for each of them, or worse, who did each of them.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 10 June 2012 03:43:56PM 3 points [-]

Like this: "5 points / 7 votes"?
(Would mean 6 positive votes and 1 negative vote.)

Comment author: Alejandro1 10 June 2012 03:58:27PM 3 points [-]

Yes, although funny enough, seeing how it would actually look makes me less convinced that I want that and more attached to the current display (maybe it just triggers my status quo bias centers).

Comment author: witzvo 10 June 2012 09:32:33PM *  1 point [-]

To me it indicates how showing derived facts instead of direct facts can be more confusing than helpful. I make an exception for showing the net point total because the current dynamics at least give some kind of rough notion of overall response and I don't want to introduce confusion, just add a bit more of the information back.

EDIT: the notion of direct I'm using here is not precise, which is part of the problem with this issue.