Although this isnât in response to your specific case (correcting for overrated or underrated posts), but in response to
Since if we all did that then weâd all be manipulating the post to where we think it ought to be and weâd lose the information held in the median of where all our votes leave it.
I think itâs okay to âdefectâ to correct the results of othersâ apparent defection or to keep important information from being hidden. Iâve used upvotes correctively when I think people are too harsh with downvotes or when the downvotes will make important information/âdiscussion much less visible. To elaborate, Iâve sometimes done this for cases like these:
When a comment or post is at low or negative karma due to downvotes, despite being made in good faith (especially if it makes plausible, relevant and useful claims), and without being uncivil or breaking other norms, even if it expresses an unpopular view (e.g. opinion or ethical view) or makes some significant errors in reasoning. I donât think we should disincentivize or censor such comments, and I think thatâs what disagreement voting and explanations should be used for. I find when people use downvotes like this without explanation to be especially unfair. This also includes when downvotes crush well-intentioned and civil but poorly executed newbie posts/âcomments, which I think is unkind and unwelcoming. (Iâve used upvotes correctively like this even before we had disagree voting.)
For posts with low or negative karma due to downvotes, if they contain (imo) important information, possibly even if poorly framed, with bad argument in them or made in apparently bad faith, if thereâs substantial valuable discussion on the issue or it isnât being discussed visibly somewhere else on the EA Forum. Low karma risks effectively hiding (making much less visible) that information and surrounding discussion through the ranking algorithm. This is usually for community controversies and criticism.
I very rarely downvote at all, but maybe Iâd refrain from downvoting something I would otherwise downvote because its karma is already low or negative.
Rightâin my view, net-negative karma conveys a particular message (something like âthis post would be better off not existingâ) that is meaningfully stronger than the median voterâs standard for downvoting. It can therefore easily exist in circumstances where the median voter would not have endorsed that conclusion.
Although this isnât in response to your specific case (correcting for overrated or underrated posts), but in response to
I think itâs okay to âdefectâ to correct the results of othersâ apparent defection or to keep important information from being hidden. Iâve used upvotes correctively when I think people are too harsh with downvotes or when the downvotes will make important information/âdiscussion much less visible. To elaborate, Iâve sometimes done this for cases like these:
When a comment or post is at low or negative karma due to downvotes, despite being made in good faith (especially if it makes plausible, relevant and useful claims), and without being uncivil or breaking other norms, even if it expresses an unpopular view (e.g. opinion or ethical view) or makes some significant errors in reasoning. I donât think we should disincentivize or censor such comments, and I think thatâs what disagreement voting and explanations should be used for. I find when people use downvotes like this without explanation to be especially unfair. This also includes when downvotes crush well-intentioned and civil but poorly executed newbie posts/âcomments, which I think is unkind and unwelcoming. (Iâve used upvotes correctively like this even before we had disagree voting.)
For posts with low or negative karma due to downvotes, if they contain (imo) important information, possibly even if poorly framed, with bad argument in them or made in apparently bad faith, if thereâs substantial valuable discussion on the issue or it isnât being discussed visibly somewhere else on the EA Forum. Low karma risks effectively hiding (making much less visible) that information and surrounding discussion through the ranking algorithm. This is usually for community controversies and criticism.
I very rarely downvote at all, but maybe Iâd refrain from downvoting something I would otherwise downvote because its karma is already low or negative.
Rightâin my view, net-negative karma conveys a particular message (something like âthis post would be better off not existingâ) that is meaningfully stronger than the median voterâs standard for downvoting. It can therefore easily exist in circumstances where the median voter would not have endorsed that conclusion.