4 ms·

> I disagree. If a comment has 100 likes and 100 dislikes that clearly is different than a comment that has 200 likes or 200 dislikes. There is no information

> I disagree. If a comment has 100 likes and 100 dislikes that clearly is different than a comment that has 200 likes or 200 dislikes. There is no information provided by the button click other than that the button was clicked. Which button the user decides to choose may as well be considered arbitrary because onlookers have no way of ever determining the true intent unless the button presser also comments with their intent. I find it curious that what was up/down has changed to like/dislike in your comment. Being able to see that someone read your comment is the reward provided by these 'karma' systems. Nobody wants to spend a slice of their life writing something that nobody will ever read. Finding readership is the goal and creating content with enough quality that someone wants to go out of their way to tell you that they read it is how you validate that you are accomplishing your goal. Either button can convey that information. With that, isn't 'dislike' logically no button press? If you truly dislike something, why do you want to reward the author?

ewired 5y ago
I think only a troll commenter would find receiving dislikes to be a rewarding experience.
- randomdata 5y ago
  I imagine receiving dislikes wouldn't be rewarding, however the up/down buttons do not convey that kind of information. All they can fundamentally tell you is that someone (assuming appropriate bot protection is in place) pressed a button in proximity to your comment. There is no other information attached with the action. It could be purely accidental for all you know. Knowing that people have loaded your comment in order for the button to be presented, and thus statistically are likely to have read it, should be rewarding, though. After all, wanting others to read your work is why you're writing in a public forum and not your private journal.
kortex 5y ago
Looks like you are being rewarded quite handsomely. Not only is "there is no info provided by which button was clicked" a really odd take when we humans explicitly assign semantic to up/down vote, this contradicts your other point, which is that "having your post read is the real reward," since there is no guarantee the post was read before voting.
- randomdata 5y ago
  > when we humans explicitly assign semantic to up/down vote What kind of semantic would that be? Using a real-world example, some of the comments I have made in this thread have had the up button pressed multiple times. Others the down button multiple times. There is no difference in the comments. The are all about the same subject, all written by me about that subject. There is no discernible explanation for the difference. All I know is that the buttons were pressed. There is no more information provided to me. > this contradicts your other point, which is that "having your post read is the real reward," since there is no guarantee the post was read before voting. How so? My "other point" (it is the same point) explicitly calls out that those guarantees are not made, using an accidental press as an example.
ItsMonkk 5y ago
This comment being down-voted, along with the top most up-voted child being a quip about being rewarded for being down-voted, is art. It's very clear that absolute vote count is a meaningless number. The vote count depends on which side of the argument that the reader belongs to. The simpler side of the argument will therefore attract more upvotes. What the writer of the comment ultimately cares about is how many people were against the writer's comment that is now for it. Or at the very least, a piece of the argument has pushed the Overton window for that individual so that if they continue reading that writer's post and those whom allegiance with them, they will flip. That must be a vanishingly small number of the votes. Votes don't give you that. It's very clear from my perspective that randomdata's post was made in good faith. randomdata's argument is one of clarity from understanding this nuance. He doesn't go into this depth, but it's there. The only way that you make the argument that randomdata is making is after having comes to terms with the mechanics. As he has skipped showing this depth his comment is unable to bring those of which understand the simpler argument but don't understand his argument, and he is therefore down-voted for it. The fact that it has taken me five paragraphs to explain this nuance and not even go into it myself is why Twitter can be such a nasty place, as you don't have five paragraphs. I'm now making this post 12 hours later, right when the post is at the bottom of the frontpage is therefore about to fall off a cliff of readability. As I care about getting my message across, I'm in complete agreeance with randomdata's argument. (+200 / -200) is much more important to me than ( +3 / -4). It's very likely the only person who might read this at this point is randomdata, of which I am speaking to the choir and achieving no change of view.

ewired 5y ago

I think only a troll commenter would find receiving dislikes to be a rewarding experience.

randomdata 5y ago
I imagine receiving dislikes wouldn't be rewarding, however the up/down buttons do not convey that kind of information. All they can fundamentally tell you is that someone (assuming appropriate bot protection is in place) pressed a button in proximity to your comment. There is no other information attached with the action. It could be purely accidental for all you know. Knowing that people have loaded your comment in order for the button to be presented, and thus statistically are likely to have read it, should be rewarding, though. After all, wanting others to read your work is why you're writing in a public forum and not your private journal.

kortex 5y ago

Looks like you are being rewarded quite handsomely. Not only is "there is no info provided by which button was clicked" a really odd take when we humans explicitly assign semantic to up/down vote, this contradicts your other point, which is that "having your post read is the real reward," since there is no guarantee the post was read before voting.

randomdata 5y ago
> when we humans explicitly assign semantic to up/down vote What kind of semantic would that be? Using a real-world example, some of the comments I have made in this thread have had the up button pressed multiple times. Others the down button multiple times. There is no difference in the comments. The are all about the same subject, all written by me about that subject. There is no discernible explanation for the difference. All I know is that the buttons were pressed. There is no more information provided to me. > this contradicts your other point, which is that "having your post read is the real reward," since there is no guarantee the post was read before voting. How so? My "other point" (it is the same point) explicitly calls out that those guarantees are not made, using an accidental press as an example.

ItsMonkk 5y ago

This comment being down-voted, along with the top most up-voted child being a quip about being rewarded for being down-voted, is art. It's very clear that absolute vote count is a meaningless number. The vote count depends on which side of the argument that the reader belongs to. The simpler side of the argument will therefore attract more upvotes. What the writer of the comment ultimately cares about is how many people were against the writer's comment that is now for it. Or at the very least, a piece of the argument has pushed the Overton window for that individual so that if they continue reading that writer's post and those whom allegiance with them, they will flip. That must be a vanishingly small number of the votes. Votes don't give you that. It's very clear from my perspective that randomdata's post was made in good faith. randomdata's argument is one of clarity from understanding this nuance. He doesn't go into this depth, but it's there. The only way that you make the argument that randomdata is making is after having comes to terms with the mechanics. As he has skipped showing this depth his comment is unable to bring those of which understand the simpler argument but don't understand his argument, and he is therefore down-voted for it. The fact that it has taken me five paragraphs to explain this nuance and not even go into it myself is why Twitter can be such a nasty place, as you don't have five paragraphs. I'm now making this post 12 hours later, right when the post is at the bottom of the frontpage is therefore about to fall off a cliff of readability. As I care about getting my message across, I'm in complete agreeance with randomdata's argument. (+200 / -200) is much more important to me than ( +3 / -4). It's very likely the only person who might read this at this point is randomdata, of which I am speaking to the choir and achieving no change of view.