If the goal of collapsing downvoted comments is to make it easier for people to find valuable conversations without wasting their time reading downvoted comments, then having valuable conversations downstream of downvoted comments (such that, in order to read the valuable conversation, you also have to read the downvoted comment) subverts that goal.
You’re right, of course, that hiding those comments doesn’t guarantee that valuable conversations won’t wind up downstream of them. But I’d expect it to lower the odds
You’re right, of course, that hiding those comments doesn’t guarantee that valuable conversations won’t wind up downstream of them. But I’d expect it to lower the odds
Karma isn’t synchronous, so the discussion can take place before the parent is downvoted. For example, this thread contains a discussion that probably mostly occurred before Eliezer’s comment was voted down to −4… making this very thread an example of the reason why this shouldn’t be done.
(Among other things, it means you can make an entire thread of conversation vanish by targeting a parent with a few downvotes, which really over-powers downvoters.)
If people are doing this lots, it’s not clear how pruning productive discussion is a good thing other than from something like an urge for tidiness. I see no reason to assume it will spring up elsewhere.
(shrug) If encouraging people to read downvoted-to-oblivion comments is a minus, then there’s a non-tidy benefit. Clearly, people differ in terms of how much they believe it is.
As for the same discussion springing up elsewhere… again, (shrug). If the convention of not having interesting discussions on hidden branches takes hold, and I want to respond to something on a hidden branch, I can respond on an open thread instead. But you’re right that I might not do so.
If the goal of collapsing downvoted comments is to make it easier for people to find valuable conversations without wasting their time reading downvoted comments, then having valuable conversations downstream of downvoted comments (such that, in order to read the valuable conversation, you also have to read the downvoted comment) subverts that goal.
You’re right, of course, that hiding those comments doesn’t guarantee that valuable conversations won’t wind up downstream of them. But I’d expect it to lower the odds
Karma isn’t synchronous, so the discussion can take place before the parent is downvoted. For example, this thread contains a discussion that probably mostly occurred before Eliezer’s comment was voted down to −4… making this very thread an example of the reason why this shouldn’t be done.
(Among other things, it means you can make an entire thread of conversation vanish by targeting a parent with a few downvotes, which really over-powers downvoters.)
If people are doing this lots, it’s not clear how pruning productive discussion is a good thing other than from something like an urge for tidiness. I see no reason to assume it will spring up elsewhere.
(shrug) If encouraging people to read downvoted-to-oblivion comments is a minus, then there’s a non-tidy benefit. Clearly, people differ in terms of how much they believe it is.
As for the same discussion springing up elsewhere… again, (shrug). If the convention of not having interesting discussions on hidden branches takes hold, and I want to respond to something on a hidden branch, I can respond on an open thread instead. But you’re right that I might not do so.
By the way, I’m enjoying the irony here.