3 ms·

> My last comment, a quip about about how every programmer thinks they're the best, was worth 64 points. However, a detailed post I wrote on molecular dynamics

> My last comment, a quip about about how every programmer thinks they're the best, was worth 64 points. However, a detailed post I wrote on molecular dynamics simulation where I fact-checked and reviewed the literature was only worth 3 points. Go figure. It doesn't seem surprising to me. It takes effort to recognize quality, most people aren't going to bother. It makes sense that quality is hard to measure, because if it weren't it would most likely be easier to produce. Perhaps the score should be corrected for length and how deep in the thread a comment is, but getting it right is probably more trouble than it's worth.

a_p 14y ago
I think that it is hacker etiquette to only pass judgement when you are qualified to do so. This is why funny comments that don't require specialized knowledge are upvoted more than insightful comments. The Slashdot comment system tries to correct this by awarding karma to "interesting" or "insightful" comments and not giving karma points to users with "funny" comments. Of course, the downside to this is that the poster of a comment that many find to be funny can end up with bad karma because one "flamebait" mod counts for more than six "funny" mods. The problem with Slashdot is comments that are flat out wrong are often moderated as insightful. This probably happens because moderators feel obligated to upvote what they perceive to be "intelligent" comments even when they are not qualified to judge them as such.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  I don't think it's etiquette, but rather disinterest. As soon as a comment is specialized, it has a smaller audience and hence draws from a smaller pool of potential upvotes. The problem with Slashdot you cite is interesting. It is related to more general problems with crowdsourcing. Wikipedia is successful but sometimes you really notice that an article is written by different people with different viewpoints. Similarly, a "democratic" model for science, where instead of peer review papers are upvoted, does not seem very attractive. Perhaps this all boils down to the notion that neither truth nor quality are democratic; i.e., the average opinion is not a good estimate of them.

a_p 14y ago

I think that it is hacker etiquette to only pass judgement when you are qualified to do so. This is why funny comments that don't require specialized knowledge are upvoted more than insightful comments. The Slashdot comment system tries to correct this by awarding karma to "interesting" or "insightful" comments and not giving karma points to users with "funny" comments. Of course, the downside to this is that the poster of a comment that many find to be funny can end up with bad karma because one "flamebait" mod counts for more than six "funny" mods. The problem with Slashdot is comments that are flat out wrong are often moderated as insightful. This probably happens because moderators feel obligated to upvote what they perceive to be "intelligent" comments even when they are not qualified to judge them as such.

andreasvc 14y ago
I don't think it's etiquette, but rather disinterest. As soon as a comment is specialized, it has a smaller audience and hence draws from a smaller pool of potential upvotes. The problem with Slashdot you cite is interesting. It is related to more general problems with crowdsourcing. Wikipedia is successful but sometimes you really notice that an article is written by different people with different viewpoints. Similarly, a "democratic" model for science, where instead of peer review papers are upvoted, does not seem very attractive. Perhaps this all boils down to the notion that neither truth nor quality are democratic; i.e., the average opinion is not a good estimate of them.