mighty

Ideologues seek confirmation. Pragmatists seek falsification.

Reposting a comment I made on the new comment features thread:

...I'd prefer having the system make its values explicit via descriptors for comments (think Slashdot or Plastic). My top two would be "insightful" and "uncharitable". The former encourages what's best about this community, the latter strongly discourages what's worst. A lot of deep and pointless threads are caused by commenters reacting to their own hasty interpretations of what someone said rather than even-handedly responding to them.

Also, no "Funny".

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=467281

I've also suggested (and agreed with later suggestions) that the karma score should be kept hidden. I'm not adverse to replacing "up/down" with "insightful/uncharitable" entirely.

Right, but it shouldn't matter what the makeup of the top 30 comments are. In this case, it only matters that someone can net a 3.5 average over their last 50. Which maybe isn't statistically probable for users who happen to write the occasional popular but low-value comment.

Either way, I would argue that while the upper bound on exacerbation isn't high, the same is true of any potential mitigation. At the end of the day, I don't see the major problems subsiding much, and it's not just one-line zingers, but, say, uncharitable comments that piss people off and provoke deep threads of people talking past each other. There's nothing more unpleasant in online communities than being the recipient of an uncharitable reply, and feeling compelled to defend oneself. (I say this being guilty of uncharitable replies myself.)

Collapsable threads might be a good idea, but I'd prefer having the system make its values explicit via descriptors for comments (think Slashdot or Plastic). My top two would be "insightful" and "uncharitable". The former encourages what's best about this community, the latter strongly discourages what's worst. A lot of deep and pointless threads are caused by commenters reacting to their own hasty interpretations of what someone said rather than even-handedly responding to them.

Also, no "Funny".

My concern is that this doesn't negate or discourage a lot of the behaviors that get amply rewarded (e.g. one-line zingers), but which a lot of us recognize as harmful to the community in the long run. In fact, I suspect it will actually exacerbate the problem.

Completely agree, and said as much not long ago:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=447563

I tend to find myself influenced by the karma count more than anything else. I have to log myself out after commenting to increase the cost of checking the change to my net karma.

I'm a strong advocate of hiding the karma counts entirely (for users, submissions, and comments). That greatly reduces the conditioning effect, not to mention karma-related drama and groupthink (as Surowiecki argues, crowd wisdom is best procured when evaluations are performed independently). Submissions and comments can still be ordered by net karma over time, as they are now.

Whatever you choose to do, I think there's a strong argument in favor of experimentalism. Especially since the site isn't a commercial undertaking and can deal with the occasional disruption.

(Um, and yes, that user is me. I locked myself out of my account to keep myself from compulsively commenting and visiting the site. Apparently I still wanted back in.)