Likely the biggest win. Hide karma and agreement indicators in the hour after a comment is posted. This would reduce the initial “luck” of someone strong-upvoting a comment, leading to a cascade of other positive votes due to anchoring.
I do think something like this is kind of reasonable, but I actually don’t want this for the opposite reason. I frequently rescue random comments and posts that clearly accidentally triggered someone in a way that doesn’t seem like it should result in being downvoted. Those are not usually comments or posts I would strong-upvote, so if I can’t see their karma total I can’t rescue them by strong-voting, I think the situation on the site would actually be worse in terms of negative visibility cascades.
If the comment is actually good, it should presumably come out of the visibility haze with a good score on average. Unless you’re worried about the low engagement regime? But then rescuing those comments seems less important anyways.
This seems like a niche use case (which doesn’t mean it’s not legitimate). I, at least, very rarely engaged in this while using the site. But it does suggest that an account-level toggle would let you (specifically) engage in this activity. WDYT?
If there’s a lot of brigading, that seems bad. But also people might just legitimately be using their votes in ways you disagree with? Sometimes “I’m confident they’re wrong” leads to the perception “so the only way you could downvote this is if you’re a triggered idiot, I must reverse it.” Hard to say without more insight into the incidents you have in mind, though. You could have a lot of data I’m missing.
If the comment is actually good, it should presumably come out of the visibility haze with a good score on average. Unless you’re worried about the low engagement regime? But then rescuing those comments seems less important anyways.
I do actually care about low-quality contributions being sorted to the bottom and collapsed pretty immediately, so this is a tricky situation.
Also, I was thinking more of posts and quick takes, where if you get downvoted early it can really hurt your visibility. For comments on posts I am less worried, and IDK, maybe I am just sold that we should do this for comments on posts (but not for quick takes and top-level posts, for that reason).
If there’s a lot of brigading, that seems bad. But also people might just legitimately be using their votes in ways you disagree with? Sometimes “I’m confident they’re wrong” leads to the perception “so the only way you could downvote this is if you’re a triggered idiot, I must reverse it.” Hard to say without more insight into the incidents you have in mind, though. You could have a lot of data I’m missing.
I often remove my strong-upvote when the comment then later on gets upvoted by other people. Agree that I don’t want to cancel out other people’s votes, but I do think it’s worth reducing random variance around the null-point, especially since getting into negative karma early basically guarantees no one will see it (since at −5 it’s hidden by default even from the All Posts page).
I don’t want to cancel out other people’s votes, but I do think it’s worth reducing random variance around the null-point, especially since getting into negative karma early basically guarantees no one will see it (since at −5 it’s hidden by default even from the All Posts page).
I wonder whether we can do something programmatically to reduce the high-variance there. For instance, a comment could only be collapsed if there are at least 2 downvotes on it (of any strength).
I do think something like this is kind of reasonable, but I actually don’t want this for the opposite reason. I frequently rescue random comments and posts that clearly accidentally triggered someone in a way that doesn’t seem like it should result in being downvoted. Those are not usually comments or posts I would strong-upvote, so if I can’t see their karma total I can’t rescue them by strong-voting, I think the situation on the site would actually be worse in terms of negative visibility cascades.
Hmmmm, interesting.
If the comment is actually good, it should presumably come out of the visibility haze with a good score on average. Unless you’re worried about the low engagement regime? But then rescuing those comments seems less important anyways.
This seems like a niche use case (which doesn’t mean it’s not legitimate). I, at least, very rarely engaged in this while using the site. But it does suggest that an account-level toggle would let you (specifically) engage in this activity. WDYT?
If there’s a lot of brigading, that seems bad. But also people might just legitimately be using their votes in ways you disagree with? Sometimes “I’m confident they’re wrong” leads to the perception “so the only way you could downvote this is if you’re a triggered idiot, I must reverse it.” Hard to say without more insight into the incidents you have in mind, though. You could have a lot of data I’m missing.
I do actually care about low-quality contributions being sorted to the bottom and collapsed pretty immediately, so this is a tricky situation.
Also, I was thinking more of posts and quick takes, where if you get downvoted early it can really hurt your visibility. For comments on posts I am less worried, and IDK, maybe I am just sold that we should do this for comments on posts (but not for quick takes and top-level posts, for that reason).
I often remove my strong-upvote when the comment then later on gets upvoted by other people. Agree that I don’t want to cancel out other people’s votes, but I do think it’s worth reducing random variance around the null-point, especially since getting into negative karma early basically guarantees no one will see it (since at −5 it’s hidden by default even from the All Posts page).
I wonder whether we can do something programmatically to reduce the high-variance there. For instance, a comment could only be collapsed if there are at least 2 downvotes on it (of any strength).
Could you hide by default for the first hour, and make it a user interface option that defaults to off?