You would need a great deal of results to get this accurate to within one karma point, I would think. And since your theorem is about a post, you shouldn’t mix comments with posts. The voting patters on the two are far different. So this would take awhile. Not that that’s a huge problem. I support the idea.
I think both comments and posts should be evaluated (separately), but i agree that voting patterns are very different.
Regarding how long it’d take, that depends to strength of the effect… what i think is the strongest effect, is that anything negative gets read much more critically—where a + voted post’s assertions will get read and seen in positive light if at all plausible, negative-voted assertions are likely to be immediately challenged (do they compel me to believe style) - it should be general reflex, that’s just being a good Bayesian reasoner, but it leads to circular reasoning problems when everyone’s reasoning this way together.
If I were to have a theory that you guys tend to apply bayesian reasoning in practice when reading posts, the vote spiral would follow as a testable hypothesis. It’s just how that stuff works in networks. Bayesian reasoning requires tracking where the data is originating from.
I think halo effects are really to blame here—if I see something downvoted, I’m far more likely to read it, because it’s more of an exception to the norm. If it’s bad, I may downvote it further. I’m sure this is the case for many.
This is the primary reason I read this post. But I did not downvote this.
You would need a great deal of results to get this accurate to within one karma point, I would think. And since your theorem is about a post, you shouldn’t mix comments with posts. The voting patters on the two are far different. So this would take awhile. Not that that’s a huge problem. I support the idea.
I think both comments and posts should be evaluated (separately), but i agree that voting patterns are very different.
Regarding how long it’d take, that depends to strength of the effect… what i think is the strongest effect, is that anything negative gets read much more critically—where a + voted post’s assertions will get read and seen in positive light if at all plausible, negative-voted assertions are likely to be immediately challenged (do they compel me to believe style) - it should be general reflex, that’s just being a good Bayesian reasoner, but it leads to circular reasoning problems when everyone’s reasoning this way together.
If I were to have a theory that you guys tend to apply bayesian reasoning in practice when reading posts, the vote spiral would follow as a testable hypothesis. It’s just how that stuff works in networks. Bayesian reasoning requires tracking where the data is originating from.
I think halo effects are really to blame here—if I see something downvoted, I’m far more likely to read it, because it’s more of an exception to the norm. If it’s bad, I may downvote it further. I’m sure this is the case for many.
This is the primary reason I read this post. But I did not downvote this.