You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

MattG comments on Open thread, Aug. 03 - Aug. 09, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 03 August 2015 07:05AM

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

Comments (177)

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

Comment author: [deleted] 03 August 2015 07:23:02PM 1 point [-]

I get the opposite sense.

Comment author: satt 08 August 2015 04:30:42PM 0 points [-]

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.)