It would be nice for full posts to also track “agreement” karma separately from “upvote’ karma. This is currently one of the highest value features to me (as epistemic feedback on my own writing / thinking) and means that I have a pretty strong bias towards writing things as shortform (where this is already implemented) rather than as full posts.
From my observations, agree/disagree voting on LW is very noisy / nearly useless. It (usually) tracks obvious things well, and is otherwise frequently wrong. Which makes sense: People are not going to think for very long before clicking agree or disagree. The crowd will not usually do better than someone who actually cared enough to write a whole post about it. (At least if that person is truth-seeking, and reasonably smart.)
That said, it still seems like a good feature suggestion.
Overall I like the feature, but I do find it confusing when a comment makes a bunch of separate claims and I don’t know what people are agreeing/disagreeing with. I think people should use agree/disagree-reacts in that case rather than voting on the whole comment.
I think more weird is how this post has “-11 agreement karma (4 Votes)” while I’m looking at it, like how is that even possible even with the super disagree. I saw a post with −5 karma with 6 votes that suddenly flipped to like 6 positive karma with 7 votes recently too. Very odd.
The feature being distinct from the other upvote is nice for avoiding reddit’s vibe of “we hate you who said this and want you to die” is good I think, but maybe if disagreers could highlight the part of the message that is disagreed with and have a heatmap of that there’s something interesting there
The fact that it’s at −11 is actually very funny: It looks like the collective intelligence of ✔/✗ voters on LW is reflectively stable.
Users with more karma have super-votes that contribute more points. By consulting these twopages, we can see that the 7th person to vote on the post you saw was probably Raemon, johnswentworth, habryka, Zvi, or Kaj_Sotala. And: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s strong votes are worth 13 points, while the theoretical maximum is 16 points.
Highlighting parts of the message is already supported by the agree/disagree react icons.
wow I did not know that, would have expected it to just be a flat double 🐸
Highlighting parts of the message is already supported by the agree/disagree react icons.
I was aware and do appreciate that part of the reaction system too, but it’s not the primary way people would disagree with a post the way that a mainline disagree would be. Probably there would be a lot who’d basically highlight the whole post anyway, just that the highlight reaction often seems more secondary or tertiary
I’m curious to hear other people’s takes on the super-vote as all-or-nothing. Right now high-karma users have the ability to either lightly agree or put a heavy thumb on the scale, but as far as I’m aware there is no option to do a mid-weight vote.
Seems like having the option to choose how strongly to upvote in the mid-range would allow for more nuanced voting. Could be an opt-in setting so it doesn’t by default result in an extra click tax for those who don’t want it.
It would be nice for full posts to also track “agreement” karma separately from “upvote’ karma. This is currently one of the highest value features to me (as epistemic feedback on my own writing / thinking) and means that I have a pretty strong bias towards writing things as shortform (where this is already implemented) rather than as full posts.
From my observations, agree/disagree voting on LW is very noisy / nearly useless. It (usually) tracks obvious things well, and is otherwise frequently wrong. Which makes sense: People are not going to think for very long before clicking agree or disagree. The crowd will not usually do better than someone who actually cared enough to write a whole post about it. (At least if that person is truth-seeking, and reasonably smart.)
That said, it still seems like a good feature suggestion.
Overall I like the feature, but I do find it confusing when a comment makes a bunch of separate claims and I don’t know what people are agreeing/disagreeing with. I think people should use agree/disagree-reacts in that case rather than voting on the whole comment.
I think more weird is how this post has “-11 agreement karma (4 Votes)” while I’m looking at it, like how is that even possible even with the super disagree. I saw a post with −5 karma with 6 votes that suddenly flipped to like 6 positive karma with 7 votes recently too. Very odd.
The feature being distinct from the other upvote is nice for avoiding reddit’s vibe of “we hate you who said this and want you to die” is good I think, but maybe if disagreers could highlight the part of the message that is disagreed with and have a heatmap of that there’s something interesting there
The fact that it’s at −11 is actually very funny: It looks like the collective intelligence of ✔/✗ voters on LW is reflectively stable.
Users with more karma have super-votes that contribute more points. By consulting these two pages, we can see that the 7th person to vote on the post you saw was probably Raemon, johnswentworth, habryka, Zvi, or Kaj_Sotala. And: Eliezer Yudkowsky’s strong votes are worth 13 points, while the theoretical maximum is 16 points.
Highlighting parts of the message is already supported by the agree/disagree react icons.
wow I did not know that, would have expected it to just be a flat double 🐸
I was aware and do appreciate that part of the reaction system too, but it’s not the primary way people would disagree with a post the way that a mainline disagree would be. Probably there would be a lot who’d basically highlight the whole post anyway, just that the highlight reaction often seems more secondary or tertiary
I’m curious to hear other people’s takes on the super-vote as all-or-nothing. Right now high-karma users have the ability to either lightly agree or put a heavy thumb on the scale, but as far as I’m aware there is no option to do a mid-weight vote.
Seems like having the option to choose how strongly to upvote in the mid-range would allow for more nuanced voting. Could be an opt-in setting so it doesn’t by default result in an extra click tax for those who don’t want it.