No, I think the added impetus to ad value to a conversation that karma generates for some is very helpful in keeping the signal-to-noise ratio at a decent level. Karma certainly doesn't HURT in regards to this and it has the ancillary benefit of quantifying, to some extent the reputation of a given contributor, which, for new users is very useful when it comes to understanding who to listen to.
Okay, but I am not sure how credible such a quantification is. Perhaps an extremely 'credible' contributor posts quality stuff but very rarely. How likely is it that I miss his submission if I was to look at karma as a measure of credibility. My point is that karma equates more to participation than substance - it is possible to have both.
Comments
No, I think the added impetus to ad value to a conversation that karma generates for some is very helpful in keeping the signal-to-noise ratio at a decent level. Karma certainly doesn't HURT in regards to this and it has the ancillary benefit of quantifying, to some extent the reputation of a given contributor, which, for new users is very useful when it comes to understanding who to listen to.
Okay, but I am not sure how credible such a quantification is. Perhaps an extremely 'credible' contributor posts quality stuff but very rarely. How likely is it that I miss his submission if I was to look at karma as a measure of credibility. My point is that karma equates more to participation than substance - it is possible to have both.