= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
FrameBenignly comments on Open thread, Aug. 03 - Aug. 09, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (177)
Does anybody else get the sense that in terms of karma, anecdotes seem to be more popular than statistical analysis when rating comments? It seems like a clear and common source of bias to me. Thoughts?
Are you basing this observation on anecdotes or on statistical analysis? :-P
Bikeshed effect
I get the opposite sense.
Same. I'd guess that ceteris paribus, comments based on statistical analysis would get more upvotes than anecdotes; it's just that ceteris ain't paribus.
A big part of a comment's karma is how many (logged-in) people read the comment, and in a given thread early comments tend to get more readers than late comments. Assuming that posting a statistical analysis is more time-consuming than posting an anecdote (and I think on average it is), comments with statistical analysis are systematically disadvantaged because they're posted later.
(This has definitely been my anecdotal experience. People seem to like comments where I dredge up statistics, but because I often post them as a thread winds down, or even after it's gone fallow, they're often less upvoted than their more-poorly-sourced parents.)