I don't know, i tend to glance at the posters name and I recognize both 'swombat' and 'unalone' because I expect them to say something interesting. I don't think I would remember them if I didn't expect their comments to be good, even though they do post frequently.
I've seen one or two users who are very active but don't get many upvotes. On the other hand, there's a guy like patio11, whose every comment gets something like a hundred upvotes. So I'd guess that quality plays a part.
On the other hand, there's a guy like patio11, whose every comment gets something like a hundred upvotes
I should really write an e-book about this and make $400,000 selling it through Twitter to startups in Silicon Valley. I can see the sales letter now: How I Made 3,000 Karma in 100 Days!
Seriously, though -- I'm flattered that folks think that bits and pieces of what I write is good, but I think that probably 80% of it is chaff and most of the remainder is merely acceptable.
Well, yeah, but this is a site where what matters are the comments. Nobody's expecting superbig essays. They just like people who talk well and know what they're saying.
Yes, post quality is one of the factors. My point is that of course there is plenty of gaming going on and it's of the simplest form. The leaderboard only encourages this gaming mentality.
>(I also wish we didn't display post score. I don't know what it provides as a benefit.)
That would be an interesting experiment. However, I think it does provide a certain use, which is getting a sense of how people are perceiving the discussion. Like the audience clapping or booing during a debate.
I would rather know what other people think after I decide what I think. Nothing is contributing to groupthink on this site more than the fact that we don't use blind voting.
That's what I was thinking. I hate seeing what other people think of opinions before I see them. Furthermore, they offer an "equalling" incentive: perhaps I'm the only person here that thinks like this, but if I see two points, and they're both well-argued, but the one I disagree with is rated higher than the one I like, I'll either vote up the one and not the other, or, if the one I disagree with is very highly rated, I'll vote it down to bump the one I like higher. The psychological impact of seeing the point I made go higher is one that modifies my voting patterns, which I don't like.
I can believe that the leaderboards encourage gaming, but I think post quality is the most important factor. I would not object to charging a karma point for each post though. That might make people think a little more before posting.
But, then there are posts like this, which won't be read by many and probably will not reach a score of two. And, docking a karma point might discourage the longer discussion threads, which are sometimes very interesting.
Overall, I don't care.
Comments
Most of the users in the leaderboard are there by the sheer amount of their posts rather than by being particularly insightful or controversial.
I don't know, i tend to glance at the posters name and I recognize both 'swombat' and 'unalone' because I expect them to say something interesting. I don't think I would remember them if I didn't expect their comments to be good, even though they do post frequently.
I've seen one or two users who are very active but don't get many upvotes. On the other hand, there's a guy like patio11, whose every comment gets something like a hundred upvotes. So I'd guess that quality plays a part.
On the other hand, there's a guy like patio11, whose every comment gets something like a hundred upvotes
I should really write an e-book about this and make $400,000 selling it through Twitter to startups in Silicon Valley. I can see the sales letter now: How I Made 3,000 Karma in 100 Days!
Seriously, though -- I'm flattered that folks think that bits and pieces of what I write is good, but I think that probably 80% of it is chaff and most of the remainder is merely acceptable.
Well, yeah, but this is a site where what matters are the comments. Nobody's expecting superbig essays. They just like people who talk well and know what they're saying.
Yes, post quality is one of the factors. My point is that of course there is plenty of gaming going on and it's of the simplest form. The leaderboard only encourages this gaming mentality.
It does, and I wish we didn't have it. (I also wish we didn't display post score. I don't know what it provides as a benefit.)
>(I also wish we didn't display post score. I don't know what it provides as a benefit.)
That would be an interesting experiment. However, I think it does provide a certain use, which is getting a sense of how people are perceiving the discussion. Like the audience clapping or booing during a debate.
I would rather know what other people think after I decide what I think. Nothing is contributing to groupthink on this site more than the fact that we don't use blind voting.
That's what I was thinking. I hate seeing what other people think of opinions before I see them. Furthermore, they offer an "equalling" incentive: perhaps I'm the only person here that thinks like this, but if I see two points, and they're both well-argued, but the one I disagree with is rated higher than the one I like, I'll either vote up the one and not the other, or, if the one I disagree with is very highly rated, I'll vote it down to bump the one I like higher. The psychological impact of seeing the point I made go higher is one that modifies my voting patterns, which I don't like.
I can believe that the leaderboards encourage gaming, but I think post quality is the most important factor. I would not object to charging a karma point for each post though. That might make people think a little more before posting.
But, then there are posts like this, which won't be read by many and probably will not reach a score of two. And, docking a karma point might discourage the longer discussion threads, which are sometimes very interesting. Overall, I don't care.
The leaderboard is about the number of story submissions more than comments.
Yeah, would be cool to a see a split of submission points and comment points.