So instead of people making obnoxious noises whenever they get a negative score they feel is unwarrranted, they’ll complain about whenever there’s even a single person that downvotes them, even if there a dozen other people upvoting them?
I reject the implied general principle that when some people might behave badly in response to some information, concealing that information from everyone is justified.
I reject the implied general principle that when some people might behave badly in response to some information, concealing that information from everyone is justified.
Well phrased. I did not mean to imply that general principle. [c.f. Kibitzing scripts mentioned here somewhere to which I take it the point is personalization.] I meant that I’ve enough information in hand to know that I don’t know what’s “right” until I think more. My de facto principle would have been more along the lines of:
If you’re in the woods, and everything gets quiet suddenly and you don’t know why, maybe you should shut up and think.
But I’m not even endorsing that until I think more at this point.
Ok. Good. Another problematic aspect for the group dynamics to think through. Frankly, I’m beginning to think/worry inertia is right. (Waiting is)
Maybe it’d still be useful to have an experimental server where things are a bit more dynamic and we can explore new features. E.g. gmail/twitter/google+/amazon all in some ways do a better job of “promoting things to my attention” than this site does. (They lose in other more important ways, though) I have some other ambitious ideas written over here. I’m not saying these are ready for use, but maybe they’re ready to prototype and refine.
So instead of people making obnoxious noises whenever they get a negative score they feel is unwarrranted, they’ll complain about whenever there’s even a single person that downvotes them, even if there a dozen other people upvoting them?
No.
I reject the implied general principle that when some people might behave badly in response to some information, concealing that information from everyone is justified.
Well phrased. I did not mean to imply that general principle. [c.f. Kibitzing scripts mentioned here somewhere to which I take it the point is personalization.] I meant that I’ve enough information in hand to know that I don’t know what’s “right” until I think more. My de facto principle would have been more along the lines of:
But I’m not even endorsing that until I think more at this point.
Ok. Good. Another problematic aspect for the group dynamics to think through. Frankly, I’m beginning to think/worry inertia is right. (Waiting is)
Maybe it’d still be useful to have an experimental server where things are a bit more dynamic and we can explore new features. E.g. gmail/twitter/google+/amazon all in some ways do a better job of “promoting things to my attention” than this site does. (They lose in other more important ways, though) I have some other ambitious ideas written over here. I’m not saying these are ready for use, but maybe they’re ready to prototype and refine.