3 ms·

> Basically, you need the site to provide you with restraints to overcome your self control problems? Hah! Fair question, but I don't think that's it. Here's

> Basically, you need the site to provide you with restraints to overcome your self control problems? Hah! Fair question, but I don't think that's it. Here's an actual example - I wrote a detailed comment about the evolution of a certain field and then I linked to resources for people who want to learn more. This guy who is a bit of a knucklehead replies, "This is wrong, you shouldn't get your info from Wikipedia" - actually, he was mistaken and I knew what I was talking about. But if his (incorrect on both counts) comment was voted higher than mine, it would make sense to reply to it to clarify. Another example is when someone mis-summarizes something to put words in your mouth. If it gets voted up by chance a little, it's a self perpetuating thing where it looks accurate. If there's no points, everyone has to evaluate it critically and then, that's fine. Like you say right here, points sort of signal quality. There's an implication that if one comment is at +5 and there's a reply at +15 saying "You're mistaken", then the +15 comment is correct. If someone is being a jerk and incorrect, it's a lot easier to ignore them when they don't have a seemingly-legitimate blessing. > The arguments I see for hiding of the points seem to revolve around solving personal issues people have. ... I want to be clear, I'm being fairly straightforward above. I'm not intending to attack you. If I was too succinct and it came off too harsh, please forgive me. Your comment was a good one, and I don't want you offended by what I wrote. =) No offense, absolutely a valid and good comment. Anyways, I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's a personal self control thing so much as - 1. People respond to incentives and signals. 2. An incorrect comment that's highly voted up puts out the signal that its correct and authoritative. 3. If someone replies to you and says "you're wrong and an idiot" and there's an external signal that they're correct, there's a very natural incentive to reply to that. 4. Whereas if people are forced to use critical thinking and evaluate comments on their own merits, the external signal is removed, and a lot of the incentive to reply (clearing up that you're not, in fact, wrong and an idiot as apparently signaled by this highly-voted comment) is no longer there. I guess you could spin that as being about personal things, but I don't think that's it - a lot of veteran commentors who are seemingly very self-controlled people (tptacek, patio11, etc) have responded along similar lines. When someone says something nasty and incorrect about you and there's a public signal that it's correct, there's a very natural incentive to reply which is largely removed by this change.

jasonlotito 15y ago
I don't think it's just about personal things. As someone else replied, points affect all our judgements. However, overall, I found that for the most part, the points were fairly accurate. Good comments got a good number of points. The problems people point to seem to be the exceptions, rather than the rule. My issue is that if you aren't using the points as any indicator of quality, then you've effective made the points useless. Why display them at all? They serve no purpose. The problem with this debate, and this pole, is the black and white nature of it. Either you display points, or you don't. Rather, I'd like to see a solution that balances the two. Don't display points, but use points under a single topic to figure out the worth of a comment. > If there's no points, everyone has to evaluate it critically and then, that's fine. That seems to be something a lot of "no-pointers" are pushing. Unfortunately, they fail to recognize a few things here. 1. People could do that before. 2. People are just as like to vote based on preconceived notions. 3. People who aren't experts in the field have little information other than what's presented to go on. Just because someone makes a seemingly good argument doesn't mean they are right. > If someone is being a jerk and incorrect, it's a lot easier to ignore them when they don't have a seemingly-legitimate blessing. 4. All comments are given an equal stage. Even comments that are wrong. (Voting down shouldn't be for disagreements. Rather, for comments that don't bring value). Basically, it levels the playing field for a debate between evolutionists and creationists. It makes them seem as if equals. 5. We still dim negative comments. Any argument for not displaying points needs to account for the dimming of negatively voted comments. As someone who has been negatively voted into dimness, only to be subsequently upvoted, negative votes being singled out doesn't help matters. People need to split the points and highlights discussion. Don't display points. However, use them to highlight comments in a threat. Base the comment value on the threads point distribution, not on a grand distribution. Basically, a high quality comment in a low traffic thread will have a different points value from that of a high quality comment in a high traffic thread.

jasonlotito 15y ago

I don't think it's just about personal things. As someone else replied, points affect all our judgements. However, overall, I found that for the most part, the points were fairly accurate. Good comments got a good number of points. The problems people point to seem to be the exceptions, rather than the rule. My issue is that if you aren't using the points as any indicator of quality, then you've effective made the points useless. Why display them at all? They serve no purpose. The problem with this debate, and this pole, is the black and white nature of it. Either you display points, or you don't. Rather, I'd like to see a solution that balances the two. Don't display points, but use points under a single topic to figure out the worth of a comment. > If there's no points, everyone has to evaluate it critically and then, that's fine. That seems to be something a lot of "no-pointers" are pushing. Unfortunately, they fail to recognize a few things here. 1. People could do that before. 2. People are just as like to vote based on preconceived notions. 3. People who aren't experts in the field have little information other than what's presented to go on. Just because someone makes a seemingly good argument doesn't mean they are right. > If someone is being a jerk and incorrect, it's a lot easier to ignore them when they don't have a seemingly-legitimate blessing. 4. All comments are given an equal stage. Even comments that are wrong. (Voting down shouldn't be for disagreements. Rather, for comments that don't bring value). Basically, it levels the playing field for a debate between evolutionists and creationists. It makes them seem as if equals. 5. We still dim negative comments. Any argument for not displaying points needs to account for the dimming of negatively voted comments. As someone who has been negatively voted into dimness, only to be subsequently upvoted, negative votes being singled out doesn't help matters. People need to split the points and highlights discussion. Don't display points. However, use them to highlight comments in a threat. Base the comment value on the threads point distribution, not on a grand distribution. Basically, a high quality comment in a low traffic thread will have a different points value from that of a high quality comment in a high traffic thread.