Given that karma is cumulative, median is a better measurement. I couldn't spot a standard deviation if it bit me these days, but I would guess the difference between 4 and 3 is significant.
Having said that, a community attracts people like the people it already contains. The more it grows, the greater variety of interests it contains, and therefore the greater number of people with certain, but now differing, interests it attracts.
If you think of it like ripples on a pond, if I'm way out on one edge, I'd likely be vastly different to a user on another edge, though we'd both find some common ground toward the centre. The closer you are to the centre the more you have in common to a greater number of people.
PG is the centre of the pond, so you would expect more people to be more 'like' him, which would lead to more votes. Not bias. Just community.
The other side of the coin would be interesting to see too. Is it difficult to determine the number of +/- votes, and could this be displayed on the leaderboard?
It would be interesting to see who is controversial, who makes very passive comments that are always agreed with, etc.
If you think average would be a better measure than median, say why. You might possibly be right, but given PG's track record re. Bayesian filtering, "You fail at statistical analysis" just doesn't seem like the right response. It also sounds like attacking the person rather than the statement.
Comments
Here are the users with the top median comment scores:
If there is a difference, it's not huge.Given that karma is cumulative, median is a better measurement. I couldn't spot a standard deviation if it bit me these days, but I would guess the difference between 4 and 3 is significant.
Having said that, a community attracts people like the people it already contains. The more it grows, the greater variety of interests it contains, and therefore the greater number of people with certain, but now differing, interests it attracts.
If you think of it like ripples on a pond, if I'm way out on one edge, I'd likely be vastly different to a user on another edge, though we'd both find some common ground toward the centre. The closer you are to the centre the more you have in common to a greater number of people.
PG is the centre of the pond, so you would expect more people to be more 'like' him, which would lead to more votes. Not bias. Just community.
The other side of the coin would be interesting to see too. Is it difficult to determine the number of +/- votes, and could this be displayed on the leaderboard?
It would be interesting to see who is controversial, who makes very passive comments that are always agreed with, etc.
You fail at statistical analysis.
If you think average would be a better measure than median, say why. You might possibly be right, but given PG's track record re. Bayesian filtering, "You fail at statistical analysis" just doesn't seem like the right response. It also sounds like attacking the person rather than the statement.