4 ms·

And yet clearly people do compare scores. The problem is that scores aren't like trends; they're like integrating a 'popularity' measure over time. As a conseq

by abeppu 16y ago

And yet clearly people do compare scores. The problem is that scores aren't like trends; they're like integrating a 'popularity' measure over time. As a consequence, you get a strong bias towards the stuff with the most points being comments from near the beginning of the discussion, not what's most correct or interesting or insightful.

bruce511 16y ago
Since I can't see your score, and you can't see mine, I honestly have no idea at this point whether more people agree with you than with me. Or indeed if no-one cares at all. When this thread is referenced to a week from now there is no way to see what sort of agreement occurred with either one of us. There are a bunch of "for" comments, and a bunch of "against" comments, but ultimately no resolution (that either of us can see.) So a plethora of "me too" postings occur to fill the void. Of course the agreement in, and of itself, means nothing - as noted elsewhere popularity does not equal correctness, however it's a data point which exists, and in some cases is useful.
- Terretta 16y ago
  > Since I can't see your score, and you can't see mine, I honestly have no idea at this point whether more people agree with you than with me... When this thread is referenced to a week from now there is no way to see what sort of agreement occurred with either one of us. It's almost as though the future reader would need to form an opinion... for themselves.
  - redler 16y ago
    The readers here tend toward the more sophisticated end of the spectrum, and of course the presence of scores doesn't preclude future readings in depth. We all understand that scores are blunt indicators, but why not have access to that information? Knowing how the community "graded" a particular comment is an interesting piece of meta-information, even if you believe the cognitive anchoring effect diminishes its value as an indicator of the relative quality of the comment. But given the quality of the audience, high scores are likely to be positively correlated with quality comments, don't you think?
    - Terretta 16y ago
      > high scores are likely to be positively correlated with quality comments, don't you think? "likely ... positive", granted, but strong correlation, no. Keep in mind the change was an experiment to mitigate effects of HN growth and the corresponding trend towards average of audience. The "tend" you mention had been unquestionably moving back to the middle. That said, I don't have a problem with points switching on after the comments page goes to archive mode. I can ignore them then, while those who want to see them then can neither vote based on bias nor vote to correct perceived bias. Discussion and reading should be thoughtful instead based on clicks One's own comments can be self-appraised by seeing one's own score in real time, influencing one's own future thoughtfulness.
      - redler 16y ago
        There are strong opinions and good arguments on both sides. Perhaps we should leave scores hidden, but provide a user preference to turn them on -- after reaching a certain karma level. If one argues that the rapid growth of the site has led to an exaggerated score influence, maybe a "norming" period makes sense. Downvoting privileges have to be "earned," so why not score visibility?
  - estel 16y ago
    But that doesn't negate the value in seeing which side of the debate was most widely agreed upon at the time. Edit: of course, this argument would be satisfied by no more than making comment scores visible on discussions older than n days.
- brudgers 16y ago
  >"When this thread is referenced to a week from now there is no way to see what sort of agreement occurred with either one of us." That just means that people will have to read the comments and decide for themselves based on the merits of the comments. One might argue that that is better than deciding based on points because some people interpret points as assent to the beliefs expressed in the comment while others interpret points as a indicating the technical quality of the comment, e.g relevant supporting rationales and examples assembled logically.
  - detst 16y ago
    But it's not necessarily about judging a comment for an upvote/downvote. The number can be used to gauge whether you should stop and read something carefully. Maybe an expert comes along and makes an extremely informative comment and maybe I just scan it. Seeing a bunch of upvotes indicates that I should probably slow down and try to learn something from it. Or maybe a well-reasoned debate has a large voting discrepancy. I value the collective judgement of the HN community and this information helps me learn from the arguments. The value of this exceeds the more fair voting that we might have now.
    - brudgers 16y ago
      >"The value of this exceeds the more fair voting that we might have now." In your argument, you are using yourself as the measure of value, rather than using the community, i.e. saving you as an individual time by helping you ignore the less popular side of an argument doesn't demonstrably improve the quality of comments of the community in general (or even your comments in particular - though it may help you choose which side to comment on in order to maximize the upvotes your comments receive). In the case where a "well-reasoned" debate has a large discrepancy then using points as a measure of value indicates an interpretation of votes as agreement with ideas rather than an objective indication of a comment's quality.
  - bruce511 16y ago
    >> That just means that people will have to read the comments and decide for themselves based on the merits of the comments. You imply that the sole benefit of the score would be to allow me to form my own opinion. Whereas I hypothosize that I already know my own opinion - the score allows me to measure the opinion of others. Those who have no opinion of their own are easily swayed, with or without a score, however for those with an opinion of their own, it is useful to know the relative popularity of that opinion. More data is almost always better - especially for those who respect the value, and limitations, of raw data.

by abeppu 16y ago

bruce511 16y ago

Since I can't see your score, and you can't see mine, I honestly have no idea at this point whether more people agree with you than with me. Or indeed if no-one cares at all. When this thread is referenced to a week from now there is no way to see what sort of agreement occurred with either one of us. There are a bunch of "for" comments, and a bunch of "against" comments, but ultimately no resolution (that either of us can see.) So a plethora of "me too" postings occur to fill the void. Of course the agreement in, and of itself, means nothing - as noted elsewhere popularity does not equal correctness, however it's a data point which exists, and in some cases is useful.

Terretta 16y ago
> Since I can't see your score, and you can't see mine, I honestly have no idea at this point whether more people agree with you than with me... When this thread is referenced to a week from now there is no way to see what sort of agreement occurred with either one of us. It's almost as though the future reader would need to form an opinion... for themselves.
- redler 16y ago
  The readers here tend toward the more sophisticated end of the spectrum, and of course the presence of scores doesn't preclude future readings in depth. We all understand that scores are blunt indicators, but why not have access to that information? Knowing how the community "graded" a particular comment is an interesting piece of meta-information, even if you believe the cognitive anchoring effect diminishes its value as an indicator of the relative quality of the comment. But given the quality of the audience, high scores are likely to be positively correlated with quality comments, don't you think?
  - Terretta 16y ago
    > high scores are likely to be positively correlated with quality comments, don't you think? "likely ... positive", granted, but strong correlation, no. Keep in mind the change was an experiment to mitigate effects of HN growth and the corresponding trend towards average of audience. The "tend" you mention had been unquestionably moving back to the middle. That said, I don't have a problem with points switching on after the comments page goes to archive mode. I can ignore them then, while those who want to see them then can neither vote based on bias nor vote to correct perceived bias. Discussion and reading should be thoughtful instead based on clicks One's own comments can be self-appraised by seeing one's own score in real time, influencing one's own future thoughtfulness.
    - redler 16y ago
      There are strong opinions and good arguments on both sides. Perhaps we should leave scores hidden, but provide a user preference to turn them on -- after reaching a certain karma level. If one argues that the rapid growth of the site has led to an exaggerated score influence, maybe a "norming" period makes sense. Downvoting privileges have to be "earned," so why not score visibility?
- estel 16y ago
  But that doesn't negate the value in seeing which side of the debate was most widely agreed upon at the time. Edit: of course, this argument would be satisfied by no more than making comment scores visible on discussions older than n days.
brudgers 16y ago
>"When this thread is referenced to a week from now there is no way to see what sort of agreement occurred with either one of us." That just means that people will have to read the comments and decide for themselves based on the merits of the comments. One might argue that that is better than deciding based on points because some people interpret points as assent to the beliefs expressed in the comment while others interpret points as a indicating the technical quality of the comment, e.g relevant supporting rationales and examples assembled logically.
- detst 16y ago
  But it's not necessarily about judging a comment for an upvote/downvote. The number can be used to gauge whether you should stop and read something carefully. Maybe an expert comes along and makes an extremely informative comment and maybe I just scan it. Seeing a bunch of upvotes indicates that I should probably slow down and try to learn something from it. Or maybe a well-reasoned debate has a large voting discrepancy. I value the collective judgement of the HN community and this information helps me learn from the arguments. The value of this exceeds the more fair voting that we might have now.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    >"The value of this exceeds the more fair voting that we might have now." In your argument, you are using yourself as the measure of value, rather than using the community, i.e. saving you as an individual time by helping you ignore the less popular side of an argument doesn't demonstrably improve the quality of comments of the community in general (or even your comments in particular - though it may help you choose which side to comment on in order to maximize the upvotes your comments receive). In the case where a "well-reasoned" debate has a large discrepancy then using points as a measure of value indicates an interpretation of votes as agreement with ideas rather than an objective indication of a comment's quality.
- bruce511 16y ago
  >> That just means that people will have to read the comments and decide for themselves based on the merits of the comments. You imply that the sole benefit of the score would be to allow me to form my own opinion. Whereas I hypothosize that I already know my own opinion - the score allows me to measure the opinion of others. Those who have no opinion of their own are easily swayed, with or without a score, however for those with an opinion of their own, it is useful to know the relative popularity of that opinion. More data is almost always better - especially for those who respect the value, and limitations, of raw data.