One suggestion would be to avoid commenting too much by having a/some friends evaluate the content of your comment before posting here. Her reasoning will see your blind spots.
This would also diminish the total number of comments.
This in turn will lead to more people reasoning about a particular comment.
One thing to which solutions are needed is: What is a better system than Karma to encourage status-seeking-rational primates to read the blog, but at the same time to avoid over-commenting to get more points?
at the same time to avoid over-commenting to get more points?
I see the karma system as benign in this respect, because people love to argue anyway (M&S also mention that in their conclusions). They would do it without a karma outcome, so adding karma seems unlikely to affect the overall number of comments much.
There are punctual exceptions. As the “Spring meta thread” shows (or the pictures thread in the babies and bunnies post), people seem to need opportunities to just goof off. This is fine but it has the unfortunate effect of being a distraction to those who (like me, I’m afraid) prefer the more “serious” stuff.
I downvoted some of the comments in the “This is a comment” thread, but clearly enough other folks disagree with me. Here again M&S have something useful to say: the group isn’t always right, and not all group processes track truth; only those which foster production and evaluation of arguments.
So, perhaps what we need is a dual system, with separate votes for “I like/dislike this” one one hand, and “Good/stupid point” on the other hand.
They would do it without a karma outcome, so adding karma seems unlikely to affect the overall number of comments much.
I don’t think that follows. I enjoy drinking soda, but if someone gave me $5 every time I did it, I would drink even more soda.
More directly, as a data point, I find myself commenting more on Less Wrong than on other blogs because of the karma points system. However, an even bigger motivator for me than that is the response notification; if not for that, I would almost never comment on old threads, or post comments specifically inviting response.
If people started taking your first advice, comment quality would go up, and downvoting might be a little more prevalent, discouraging at least “pointless” posts. Also, posts in clear violation of guidelines would not happen much, unless there was visibly an exceptional benefit, lest they draw downvotes. Judging from MathOverflow (see my other comment), the downvoting doesn’t devolve into fearmongering, either, just a healthy immunity to trolling and time-wasting.
What is a better system than Karma to encourage status-seeking-rational primates to read the blog, but at the same time to avoid over-commenting to get more points?
Systematically downvoting comments like mine right here.
What about your comment makes it worthy of downvoting? Is it that it’s meta, or that it doesn’t add content to the conversation, or just because you asked us to?
I can’t for the life of me remember making this comment.
I’d guess that it was meta; it was semi-smart, but not very productive, so it deserved to be downvoted, which is what it asked for, and which it got. Basically, smart-sounding comments with tenuous relevance are a waste—the smartness should not be a shield.
One suggestion would be to avoid commenting too much by having a/some friends evaluate the content of your comment before posting here. Her reasoning will see your blind spots. This would also diminish the total number of comments. This in turn will lead to more people reasoning about a particular comment.
One thing to which solutions are needed is: What is a better system than Karma to encourage status-seeking-rational primates to read the blog, but at the same time to avoid over-commenting to get more points?
I see the karma system as benign in this respect, because people love to argue anyway (M&S also mention that in their conclusions). They would do it without a karma outcome, so adding karma seems unlikely to affect the overall number of comments much.
There are punctual exceptions. As the “Spring meta thread” shows (or the pictures thread in the babies and bunnies post), people seem to need opportunities to just goof off. This is fine but it has the unfortunate effect of being a distraction to those who (like me, I’m afraid) prefer the more “serious” stuff.
I downvoted some of the comments in the “This is a comment” thread, but clearly enough other folks disagree with me. Here again M&S have something useful to say: the group isn’t always right, and not all group processes track truth; only those which foster production and evaluation of arguments.
So, perhaps what we need is a dual system, with separate votes for “I like/dislike this” one one hand, and “Good/stupid point” on the other hand.
I don’t think that follows. I enjoy drinking soda, but if someone gave me $5 every time I did it, I would drink even more soda.
More directly, as a data point, I find myself commenting more on Less Wrong than on other blogs because of the karma points system. However, an even bigger motivator for me than that is the response notification; if not for that, I would almost never comment on old threads, or post comments specifically inviting response.
If people started taking your first advice, comment quality would go up, and downvoting might be a little more prevalent, discouraging at least “pointless” posts. Also, posts in clear violation of guidelines would not happen much, unless there was visibly an exceptional benefit, lest they draw downvotes. Judging from MathOverflow (see my other comment), the downvoting doesn’t devolve into fearmongering, either, just a healthy immunity to trolling and time-wasting.
This is great Meta material ;)
Systematically downvoting comments like mine right here.
What about your comment makes it worthy of downvoting? Is it that it’s meta, or that it doesn’t add content to the conversation, or just because you asked us to?
I can’t for the life of me remember making this comment.
I’d guess that it was meta; it was semi-smart, but not very productive, so it deserved to be downvoted, which is what it asked for, and which it got. Basically, smart-sounding comments with tenuous relevance are a waste—the smartness should not be a shield.