Second, I find questionable the authors’ conclusion that negative evaluations cause the subsequent decline in post quality and increase in post frequency, since they did not control the positive/negative evaluations. They model the positive/negative evaluations as random acts of chance
If a community really votes as random acts of chance, that explains that the voting doesn’t lead to good behavior ;)
If a community really votes as random acts of chance, that explains that the voting doesn’t lead to good behavior ;)