4 ms·
That makes sense. I guess I just assumed that the pattern would be more like this: 1.) See headline 2.) If the user enjoyed the read, they click upvote 3.) (Ma
by robotnoises 11y ago
That makes sense. I guess I just assumed that the pattern would be more like this:
1.) See headline
2.) If the user enjoyed the read, they click upvote
3.) (Maybe) comment
What you are suggesting is that it's more like this:
1.) See headline
2.) Click upvote
3.) Read link
4.) (Maybe) comment
- scott_s 11y agoNot necessarily. codegeek's point holds for both patterns; it's a statement on upvoting a submission for potential discussion.
- ad_hominem 11y agoI think you misinterpreted what codegeek wrote. People won't comment if they feel they don't have anything of substance to add - sometimes submissions can stand on their own pretty well and thus don't solicit a lot of comments. It's about maintaining a high signal-to-noise ratio. If anything I've found that you can use the karma/comment ratio as a moderately reliable indicator of link quality. As for your original question, you should probably "lurk moar" before starting off-topic discussions. This really isn't that uncommon.