3 ms·
I couldn't find the article without passing through a paywall. But this article [1] summarizes the methodology decently: "We used a site very similar to Reddit
by vwinsyee 13y ago
I couldn't find the article without passing through a paywall. But this article [1] summarizes the methodology decently:
"We used a site very similar to Reddit," Aral says. Here's how it worked: The researchers convinced an anonymous website–under the promise it would remain nameless–to allow them to test slight manipulations in online voting. Over six months, the research team took a small percentage of more than 100,000 written comments and slightly altered their vote rating as they were submitted. Four percent of the comments were given a positive edge (a single upvote) while another 2 percent were struck with an immediate disadvantage (a lonely downvote).
[1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/nueroscience/upvotes-downvotes-and-the-science-of-the-reddit-hivemind-15784871 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/nueroscience/...
- vwinsyee 13y agoOn an unrelated note, I guess someone at Popular Mechanics misspelled the "neuroscience" category label. The correct "neuroscience" spelling redirects to "nueroscience"...
- NhanH 13y agoThanks. I guess in that case "popular" would be a more accurate description, rather than "positive", isn't it?
- bobbydavid 13y agomy wild theory: what if the site in the study was HN!? disclaimer: I have no idea and tldr
- jbri 13y agoCome to think of it, at one point in the not-too-distant past I did see a fair few new-ish comments with zero points instead of one, where I couldn't see anything about the comment that was objectionable enough to be worth downvoting. I don't remember what my response to those was - probably I just figured that someone was having a bad day or read something into the comment that I wasn't seeing or something.