Sorry, I think you’re putting far too much weight on something that is not my position.
Your post made the claim that it was substantially likely that most downvotes had no corresponding comment.
My closing line, verbatim:
I’m anticipating this post to be a straight shot to meta-irony: I have confidently made a non-normative claim, so expect a couple of negative post votes, absent of material feedback.
If I thought this was true “it [is] substantially likely that most downvotes had no corresponding comment.”, that would look like me closing with:
I think I will get 10 negative post votes and no material feedback
I’m describing, explicitly in my post, a different phenomenon that contains more nuance: specifically low signal early votes that suppress visibility.
I say:
Sometimes I spend hours putting together a post that I’m proud of, but then receive no feedback besides a couple of downvotes.
and
a down-voting agent can effectively silence my voice just because they disagree with me.
I agree [people don’t owe me their time], but I feel that there is a distinct imbalance where a post can take hours of effort, and be cast aside with a 10-second vibe check and 1 second “downvote click”. I believe that the platform experience for both post authors and readers could be significantly improved by adding a second post-level signal that only takes an additional few seconds — this could be a React like “Difficult to Parse” or a ~30-character tip like “Same ideas posted recently: [link]”.
None of this looks like the claim: “it was substantially likely that most downvotes had no corresponding comment.”
If you want to adjust your calculation, you would need to account for my true position which is that VN (recall: my post having a couple of negative votes) is a prerequisite for a comment that is made to be from a Downvoter.
However, obviously it’s also a small sample size. That means it’s high variability, and we shouldn’t put much weight on it.
To simplify things, even though VN is a prerequisite in my view we can even drop it (due to it holding little weight), so we’re approximately evaluating:
P ( F=1 | R = 1, CFP = 1) = P ( D=1 | R = 1, CFP = 1) = x
Edit:
And implicit in this rebalancing (maybe) — adding this edit to clarify — is that I don’t agree with this:
Now let us examine P(CFP_r | C_r). Looking over the site, almost all comments are in some way reactionary to the thing they are commenting on, and all but a tiny minority are >= 30 characters. So P(CFP_r | C_r) > 0.8 is likely in the background and not just under condition F_r.
I absolutely did not feel that CFP was just background noise. I gave significant weight to the fact that the first line (R) explicitly requested comments of the form of CFP.
Sorry, I think you’re putting far too much weight on something that is not my position.
My closing line, verbatim:
If I thought this was true “it [is] substantially likely that most downvotes had no corresponding comment.”, that would look like me closing with:
I’m describing, explicitly in my post, a different phenomenon that contains more nuance: specifically low signal early votes that suppress visibility.
I say:
and
and in my discussion with @Drake Morrison :
None of this looks like the claim: “it was substantially likely that most downvotes had no corresponding comment.”
If you want to adjust your calculation, you would need to account for my true position which is that VN (recall: my post having a couple of negative votes) is a prerequisite for a comment that is made to be from a Downvoter.
However, obviously it’s also a small sample size. That means it’s high variability, and we shouldn’t put much weight on it.
To simplify things, even though VN is a prerequisite in my view we can even drop it (due to it holding little weight), so we’re approximately evaluating:
P ( F=1 | R = 1, CFP = 1) = P ( D=1 | R = 1, CFP = 1) = x
Edit:
And implicit in this rebalancing (maybe) — adding this edit to clarify — is that I don’t agree with this:
I absolutely did not feel that CFP was just background noise. I gave significant weight to the fact that the first line (R) explicitly requested comments of the form of CFP.