A more difficult challenge is predicting karma on your top level posts.
That is difficult, and one of the reasons I’m very hesitant to post. (Luckily, my first three posts were “important” enough to me that I almost didn’t worry about their scores before posting; as for the fourth, I somehow managed to predict the score almost exactly correctly.)
My predictors in this area tend to be way off the mark. For this post, my guess is between +4 and +20. Reasoning: I don’t see how it could get over 20 unless it gets promoted and the concept surprises readers; 4 seems like a solid guess for “interesting, uncontroversial, but not groundbreaking.”
I’ve been thinking it might be useful to establish a consensus on the “meaning” of various levels of post karma. Here’s my top-of-the-head-suggestion:
0-10: Acceptable
10-20: Solid
20-30: Good
30 − 40: Quite Good
40+: Outstanding
100+: Unheard-of Stupendous Brilliance
I’d be curious to hear how this compares to others’ views of post scores.
Incidentally, this reminds me: there ought to be a specific term for the glee experienced when one’s post or comment is voted into the karma stratosphere.
I suggest “Yvainity.”
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist. No offense to Yvain, whose posts deserve their high ratings!)
As more people join Less Wrong, more currency is also created, devaluing each unit of karma. This means that a post made a year ago that got 30 votes is getting more support than a post getting 30 votes today.
Indeed, but in that regard not all old posts are created equal.
Some are highly linked from more recent posts, from the about page, from the wiki and sequences page. Other are orphans that will only be found by a very small fraction of recent members.
I bet someone could do a thesis on the economics of karma in online communities (maybe it has already been done, in fact—anyone has seen one?).
That is difficult, and one of the reasons I’m very hesitant to post. (Luckily, my first three posts were “important” enough to me that I almost didn’t worry about their scores before posting; as for the fourth, I somehow managed to predict the score almost exactly correctly.)
I’ve been thinking it might be useful to establish a consensus on the “meaning” of various levels of post karma. Here’s my top-of-the-head-suggestion:
0-10: Acceptable
10-20: Solid
20-30: Good
30 − 40: Quite Good
40+: Outstanding
100+: Unheard-of Stupendous Brilliance
I’d be curious to hear how this compares to others’ views of post scores.
Incidentally, this reminds me: there ought to be a specific term for the glee experienced when one’s post or comment is voted into the karma stratosphere.
I suggest “Yvainity.”
(Sorry, I couldn’t resist. No offense to Yvain, whose posts deserve their high ratings!)
Don’t forget karma inflation.
As more people join Less Wrong, more currency is also created, devaluing each unit of karma. This means that a post made a year ago that got 30 votes is getting more support than a post getting 30 votes today.
But at least we don’t have a central bank yet...
But surely this is offset somewhat by the possibility of new members voting on old posts.
Indeed, but in that regard not all old posts are created equal.
Some are highly linked from more recent posts, from the about page, from the wiki and sequences page. Other are orphans that will only be found by a very small fraction of recent members.
I bet someone could do a thesis on the economics of karma in online communities (maybe it has already been done, in fact—anyone has seen one?).
I think of 0-10 as Weak and 10-20 as Acceptable, but otherwise similarly to you.