One possibility is that the kind of content printing-spoon likes is easy to get wrong, and therefore easy to get voted down for, and therefore the system is set up with the wrong incentives (for the kind of content printing-spoon likes). I’d guess that for most users, the possibility of getting voted down is much more salient than the possibility of getting voted up. Getting voted down represents a form of semi-public humiliation (it’s not like reddit, where if you post something lame it gets downvoted and consequentially becomes obscure).
The great scientists often make this error. They fail to continue to plant the little acorns from which the mighty oak trees grow. They try to get the big thing right off. And that isn’t the way things go.
Overall, I suspect that LW could stand to rely less on downvoting in general as a means of influencing user behavior. It seems like meta threads of this type often go something like “there’s content X I hate, content Y I hate, and practically no content at all, really!” Well if you want more content, don’t disparage the people writing content! It may make sense to moderate voting behavior based on how much new stuff is being posted—if hardly any new stuff is being posted, be more willing to upvote. If there’s lots of stuff competing for attention, vote down lamer stuff so the good stuff gets the recognition it deserves.
I think we could stand to see high-karma LWers who rarely post in Main/Discussion post there more. Maybe make it impossible for anyone with over X karma to get voted below 0 in a Main or Discussion post. Or make a new subforum where high-karma users can post free of moderation. (I’ll admit, the oligarchical aspect of this appeals to me.)
Also, maybe be realistic about the fact that most people are not going to be willing to go to lukeprog/gwern lengths to dig up papers related to their posts, and figure out the best way to live with that.
Well, I tried to make a post once, got downvoted into oblivion, and decided not to put myself through that again. So yeah this happens for real, although perhaps in my case it is no big loss.
One possibility is that the kind of content printing-spoon likes is easy to get wrong, and therefore easy to get voted down for, and therefore the system is set up with the wrong incentives (for the kind of content printing-spoon likes). I’d guess that for most users, the possibility of getting voted down is much more salient than the possibility of getting voted up. Getting voted down represents a form of semi-public humiliation (it’s not like reddit, where if you post something lame it gets downvoted and consequentially becomes obscure).
You and Your Research
See this thread for more: http://lesswrong.com/lw/5pf/what_were_losing/
Overall, I suspect that LW could stand to rely less on downvoting in general as a means of influencing user behavior. It seems like meta threads of this type often go something like “there’s content X I hate, content Y I hate, and practically no content at all, really!” Well if you want more content, don’t disparage the people writing content! It may make sense to moderate voting behavior based on how much new stuff is being posted—if hardly any new stuff is being posted, be more willing to upvote. If there’s lots of stuff competing for attention, vote down lamer stuff so the good stuff gets the recognition it deserves.
I think we could stand to see high-karma LWers who rarely post in Main/Discussion post there more. Maybe make it impossible for anyone with over X karma to get voted below 0 in a Main or Discussion post. Or make a new subforum where high-karma users can post free of moderation. (I’ll admit, the oligarchical aspect of this appeals to me.)
Also, maybe be realistic about the fact that most people are not going to be willing to go to lukeprog/gwern lengths to dig up papers related to their posts, and figure out the best way to live with that.
Well, I tried to make a post once, got downvoted into oblivion, and decided not to put myself through that again. So yeah this happens for real, although perhaps in my case it is no big loss.