We can prevent people from double downvoting if they opened the post and instantly double downvoted (spend almost zero time on the page). Those are most likely the ones who didn’t read anything except the title.
Maybe it’s better for them to flag it instead if it was some spam or another violation, or ask to change the title. It’s unfair for the writer and other readers to get authors double downvoted just because of the bad title or some typo.
We have the ability to comment and downvote paragraphs. This feature is great. Maybe we can aggregate those and they’ll be more precise.
Especially going below zero is demotivating. So maybe we can ask people to give some feedback (at least as a bubble in a corner after you downvoted. You can ignore this bubble). So you can double downvote someone below zero and then a bubble will appear for 30 seconds and maybe on some “Please, give feedback for some of your downvotes to motivate writers to improve” page.
We maybe want to teach authors why others “don’t like their posts”, so this cycle of downvotes (after initial success, almost each post I was writing was downvoted and I had no idea why, I thought they were too short and so hard to get the context, my ideas I counterintuitive and exploratory) will not become perpetual until the author will abandon the whole thing.
We can have the great website we have now plus a “school of newbies learning to become great thinkers, writers and safety researchers” by getting feedback or we can become more and more like some elitist club where only the established users are welcome and double upvote each other while double downvoting the newbies and those whose ideas are counterintuitive, too new or written not in some perfect journalistic style.
Thank you for considering it! The rational community is great, kind and important. LessWrong is great, kind and important. Great website engines and UIs can become even greater. Thank you for the work you do!
Some more thoughts:
We can prevent people from double downvoting if they opened the post and instantly double downvoted (spend almost zero time on the page). Those are most likely the ones who didn’t read anything except the title.
Maybe it’s better for them to flag it instead if it was some spam or another violation, or ask to change the title. It’s unfair for the writer and other readers to get authors double downvoted just because of the bad title or some typo.
We have the ability to comment and downvote paragraphs. This feature is great. Maybe we can aggregate those and they’ll be more precise.
Especially going below zero is demotivating. So maybe we can ask people to give some feedback (at least as a bubble in a corner after you downvoted. You can ignore this bubble). So you can double downvote someone below zero and then a bubble will appear for 30 seconds and maybe on some “Please, give feedback for some of your downvotes to motivate writers to improve” page.
We maybe want to teach authors why others “don’t like their posts”, so this cycle of downvotes (after initial success, almost each post I was writing was downvoted and I had no idea why, I thought they were too short and so hard to get the context, my ideas I counterintuitive and exploratory) will not become perpetual until the author will abandon the whole thing.
We can have the great website we have now plus a “school of newbies learning to become great thinkers, writers and safety researchers” by getting feedback or we can become more and more like some elitist club where only the established users are welcome and double upvote each other while double downvoting the newbies and those whose ideas are counterintuitive, too new or written not in some perfect journalistic style.
Thank you for considering it! The rational community is great, kind and important. LessWrong is great, kind and important. Great website engines and UIs can become even greater. Thank you for the work you do!