Ask HN: Increasing Karma Implies Decreasing Variance?(marginalrevolution.com)
marginalrevolution.com
Ask HN: Increasing Karma Implies Decreasing Variance?
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/03/do-influential-people-develop-more-conventional-opinions.html
Using # of posts / time period as a proxy for variety (big maybe), does Robin Hanson's question withstand scrutiny using HN posting data?
22 comments
Anyone who's followed some of my threads here know that I don't shy away from controversial arguments (some of which got downmodded to hell), despite being in the top 15 on the leaderboard.
Let me be clear - I clearly do enjoy the game of accumulating karma points, but I enjoy the game of speaking my mind far more.
I've seen plenty of controversial arguments (some of which got downmodded to hell too) from other "high karma" people, so I don't think this is a problem here, though it may be a problem in other communities.
Let me be clear - I clearly do enjoy the game of accumulating karma points, but I enjoy the game of speaking my mind far more.
I've seen plenty of controversial arguments (some of which got downmodded to hell too) from other "high karma" people, so I don't think this is a problem here, though it may be a problem in other communities.
Some high karma people are there because they trigger controversy. mattmaroon comes to mind. And I don't know if I count as a high-karma user but I'm on the leaderboard, and I think that most of my karma comes only from controversial discussions.
So far, I've seen very few HN users who have high karma because they're gaming the system. We're too small to have high karma matter much, so a lot of people just try their damndest to contribute to the community - and in a community of thinkers and designers, that usually means speaking your mind rather than conforming.
So far, I've seen very few HN users who have high karma because they're gaming the system. We're too small to have high karma matter much, so a lot of people just try their damndest to contribute to the community - and in a community of thinkers and designers, that usually means speaking your mind rather than conforming.
Most of the users in the leaderboard are there by the sheer amount of their posts rather than by being particularly insightful or controversial.
I don't know, i tend to glance at the posters name and I recognize both 'swombat' and 'unalone' because I expect them to say something interesting. I don't think I would remember them if I didn't expect their comments to be good, even though they do post frequently.
I've seen one or two users who are very active but don't get many upvotes. On the other hand, there's a guy like patio11, whose every comment gets something like a hundred upvotes. So I'd guess that quality plays a part.
On the other hand, there's a guy like patio11, whose every comment gets something like a hundred upvotes
I should really write an e-book about this and make $400,000 selling it through Twitter to startups in Silicon Valley. I can see the sales letter now: How I Made 3,000 Karma in 100 Days!
Seriously, though -- I'm flattered that folks think that bits and pieces of what I write is good, but I think that probably 80% of it is chaff and most of the remainder is merely acceptable.
I should really write an e-book about this and make $400,000 selling it through Twitter to startups in Silicon Valley. I can see the sales letter now: How I Made 3,000 Karma in 100 Days!
Seriously, though -- I'm flattered that folks think that bits and pieces of what I write is good, but I think that probably 80% of it is chaff and most of the remainder is merely acceptable.
Well, yeah, but this is a site where what matters are the comments. Nobody's expecting superbig essays. They just like people who talk well and know what they're saying.
Yes, post quality is one of the factors. My point is that of course there is plenty of gaming going on and it's of the simplest form. The leaderboard only encourages this gaming mentality.
It does, and I wish we didn't have it. (I also wish we didn't display post score. I don't know what it provides as a benefit.)
>(I also wish we didn't display post score. I don't know what it provides as a benefit.)
That would be an interesting experiment. However, I think it does provide a certain use, which is getting a sense of how people are perceiving the discussion. Like the audience clapping or booing during a debate.
That would be an interesting experiment. However, I think it does provide a certain use, which is getting a sense of how people are perceiving the discussion. Like the audience clapping or booing during a debate.
I would rather know what other people think after I decide what I think. Nothing is contributing to groupthink on this site more than the fact that we don't use blind voting.
That's what I was thinking. I hate seeing what other people think of opinions before I see them. Furthermore, they offer an "equalling" incentive: perhaps I'm the only person here that thinks like this, but if I see two points, and they're both well-argued, but the one I disagree with is rated higher than the one I like, I'll either vote up the one and not the other, or, if the one I disagree with is very highly rated, I'll vote it down to bump the one I like higher. The psychological impact of seeing the point I made go higher is one that modifies my voting patterns, which I don't like.
I can believe that the leaderboards encourage gaming, but I think post quality is the most important factor. I would not object to charging a karma point for each post though. That might make people think a little more before posting.
But, then there are posts like this, which won't be read by many and probably will not reach a score of two. And, docking a karma point might discourage the longer discussion threads, which are sometimes very interesting. Overall, I don't care.
But, then there are posts like this, which won't be read by many and probably will not reach a score of two. And, docking a karma point might discourage the longer discussion threads, which are sometimes very interesting. Overall, I don't care.
Would some please explain how the article's actual headline:
Do influential people develop more conventional opinions?
led to this being a Ask HN question. Is the question suggesting that more karma = more conformity with mainstream views?
I don't think it applies to Hacker News, because no one "games" karma, and having a high score doesn't seem to give anyone special influence over site content.
Wikipedia certainly has this problem, though. It seems to appeal to those with the petty-tyrant mentality, too.
Wikipedia certainly has this problem, though. It seems to appeal to those with the petty-tyrant mentality, too.
The simple answer is no.
Case sample: Rush Limbaugh
An interesting theory.
An interesting theory.
Rush Limbaugh is not an influential individual. He is part of what is essentially an orchestrated system for conveying (conventional) right-wing ideology. Ever wonder why different news people during the day hit upon the same topic? I kid you not.
I'd disagree with you there. It's not an orchestrated system. They all just follow the same blind ideology, and as a result their ideas stem from the same talking points.
Rush is extremely influential. But then, he's not controversial. A large part of the country wants exactly what he's peddling: black-and-white ideology.
Rush is extremely influential. But then, he's not controversial. A large part of the country wants exactly what he's peddling: black-and-white ideology.