Comment author: Lumifer 21 July 2015 01:30:12AM 3 points [-]

Any particular reason you did a plot this way instead of having a cloud of points and drawing some kind of regression line or curve through? You are unnecessarily losing information by aggregating into buckets.

Comment author: cleonid 21 July 2015 11:43:00AM 0 points [-]

True, but it is virtually impossible to see a meaningful pattern when you have thousands data points on the graph and R2<0.2.

Comment author: Lumifer 20 July 2015 04:05:46PM *  7 points [-]

I think these plots would by much improved by adding error bars. In particular, I suspect that the number of short posts is greater than the number of long posts and so the average-karma estimates for long posts are more uncertain.

Also, did you bucketize the word counts? What do specific points on your plots correspond to?

Comment author: cleonid 20 July 2015 10:32:17PM 1 point [-]

Each point on the graph corresponds to an average of several hundred (about two thousand for the middle graph) data points. A number of short posts is indeed greater than the number of long posts, so the horizontal distance between the points on the graph increases with increasing number of characters.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 20 July 2015 03:58:21PM *  1 point [-]

I would love to see mine, considering I have two very different styles of post which have different average lengths.

Comment author: cleonid 20 July 2015 10:21:13PM 2 points [-]

You can get the rating statistics of your LW comments by registering on Omnilibrium and then clicking on this link.

Comment author: gjm 20 July 2015 05:04:58PM 10 points [-]

In the "top 10" aggregate, you are at risk of the following Simpsonian problem: you have two posters A and B; one writes longer comments than the other and also happens to be cleverer / more interesting / funnier / better at appealing to the prejudices of the LW crowd. So in the whole group there is a positive correlation between length and quality, but actually everyone likes A's shorter comments better and everyone likes B's shorter comments better. (Or, of course, likewise but with "longer" and "shorter" switched.)

Comment author: cleonid 20 July 2015 10:15:41PM 3 points [-]

It’s an interesting possibility. But I have looked at the data and for all ten users the comments above 1000 characters get higher average ratings than shorter comments.

Comment author: cleonid 20 July 2015 02:12:33PM 3 points [-]

Would statistical feedback on the style and content of your posts be useful to you?

Submitting...

Should you write longer comments? (Statistical analysis of the relationship between comment length and ratings)

11 cleonid 20 July 2015 02:09PM

A few months ago we have launched an experimental website. In brief, our goal is to create a platform where unrestricted freedom of speech would be combined with high quality of discussion. The problem can be approached from two directions. One is to help users navigate through content and quickly locate the higher quality posts. Another, which is the topic of this article, is to help users improve the quality of their own posts by providing them with meaningful feedback.

One important consideration for those who want to write better comments is how much detail to leave out. Our statistical analysis shows that for many users there is a strong connection between the ratings and the size of their comments. For example, for Yvain (Scott Alexander) and Eliezer_Yudkowsky, the average number of upvotes grows almost linearly with increasing comment length.

 

 

This trend, however, does not apply to all posters. For example, for the group of top ten contributors (in the last 30 days) to LessWrong, the average number of upvotes increases only slightly with the length of the comment (see the graph below).  For quite a few people the change even goes in the opposite direction – longer comments lead to lower ratings.

 

 

Naturally, even if your longer comments are rated higher than the short ones, this does not mean that inflating comments would always produce positive results. For most users (including popular writers, such as Yvain and Eliezer), the average number of downvotes increases with increasing comment length. The data also shows that long comments that get most upvotes are generally distinct from long comments that get most downvotes. In other words, long comments are fine as long as they are interesting, but they are penalized more when they are not.

 

 

The rating patterns vary significantly from person to person. For some posters, the average number of upvotes remains flat until the comment length reaches some threshold and then starts declining with increasing comment length. For others, the optimal comment length may be somewhere in the middle. (Users who have accounts on both Lesswrong and Omnilibrium can check the optimal length for their own comments on both websites by using this link.)

Obviously length is just one among many factors that affect comment quality and for most users it does not explain more than 20% of variation in their ratings. We have a few other ideas on how to provide people with meaningful feedback on both the style and the content of their posts. But before implementing them, we would like to get your opinions first. Would such feedback be actually useful to you?

Comment author: cleonid 13 July 2015 11:06:26AM 6 points [-]
Comment author: [deleted] 01 July 2015 11:31:41AM 1 point [-]

I think currently it is a bit too object-level for my preferences, I am far more interested in discussing more meta level political philosophy e.g. Rawls vs. Nozick vs. others. I think as long as people believe in fundamentally different political values and philosophies they cannot really make a lot of progress towards a consensus on the object level.

Would it be a good idea to separate the debate forum into object and meta or politics and political philosophy? I would certianly support that.

I would probably add a historical debate section as well. This is really an excellent testing ground of political philosophy. You really a learn about yourself and others by discussing whom you would support and how reluctantly or enthusiastically during the Spanish Civil War for example and who of the famous people got it right or wrong.

Comment author: cleonid 01 July 2015 01:09:43PM 2 points [-]

as people believe in fundamentally different political values and philosophies they cannot really make a lot of progress towards a consensus on the object level

At least in theory, it may be possible for people to find common objectives even when their values are fundamentally different. For instance, some conservatives support raising the minimum wage on the ground that it reduces the number of low-skill jobs and deters illegal immigration.

I would probably add a historical debate section as well.

History is already included as one of the main sections (though it currently includes only one article and one debate topic). You just need to click on “History” below the banner to get to it. Once there are enough posts on the topic of political philosophy, it can be also added as a separate section.

You are welcome to open a new debate about the Spanish Civil War (personally, I also find the topic interesting).

Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics

9 cleonid 01 July 2015 11:15AM

Two months ago we began testing an experimental website for Rational Discussion of Politics.  Our main goal was to create a platform that would allow high quality discussion of controversial topics without resorting to any forms of censorship. The website is now ready and new members are welcome to join the discussions.

Many thanks to all the LessWrong members who have been taking part in this project.

 

P.S.  A note to new users.  A key feature of the new website is the automated recommendation system which evaluates all comments and articles based on their potential interest for each user. The recommendation system has passed the initial calibration, but its ongoing performance is sensitive to the number of user ratings per comment/article. So rating posts that you read is highly encouraged.

Comment author: ChristianKl 06 June 2015 04:36:05PM 0 points [-]

If you measure the personality via a big 5 personality test you can see whether the ratings correlate.

Comment author: cleonid 06 June 2015 05:44:02PM 0 points [-]

I’m sure there will be some correlations but I would not know what to do with them. Traits like conscientiousness have no obvious connection to my question. Openness to new experiences is sometimes used as a proxy for open-mindedness, but to me this seems a little farfetched. Is there a strong reason to believe that an adventurous eater will be more open-minded on political questions?

View more: Prev | Next