Warnock's dilemma

Warnock's first case doesn't seem to apply to modern social media? A "perfect" post that doesn't warrant a comment will simply get upvoted / liked / boosted / etc. And in a sufficiently large community, there are plenty of people willing to say "This" or "I agree" even if that doesn't add much to the conversation.

I have a related problem in my personal life: in social situations with my wife, I sometimes make a joke that gets crickets. She will wait a minute, then make the same joke…and get a huge response. One of the drawbacks of being married to someone who is more likeable/has a better comedic timing than you.

This has been submitted a few times before, but with very few comments.

Let's see how this goes.

Is there a similar dilemma for comments? If you are in discussion (or argument) with someone online and they stop responding, is it because they have become convinced? Is it because they have come to the conclusion that they are wasting their time trying to convince you that you are wrong? Did they get bored and wander off? Are they busy or go to sleep and might respond later? Did something happen to them?

Ah, this relates to what I call the Helveticomment (see profile).

For general situations, I'd guess there are at least 5-10 more really good types of interpretations to be explored, on top of Warnock's originals. (And on top of the others suggested in the article)

First time I'm learning about this. Is it possible to take content that falls into this category and then reformulate it so that it produces more responses?

Now i found a term to explain why no one commented on my last post.

Looking at secondary and tertiary "responses" can help you make useful inferences in the face of zero comments.

A complaint ietf draft authors can relate to. Good ideas get crickets, bad ideas go deep.

Love the concept, I might have been one of the people occasionally sharing it on here.

Today there is also a third possibility: your account is shadow-banned.