Thereâs a lot of competition the âfrontpageâ regarding linked articles and direct posts by forum participants. I can understand why people would think this article should not be displacing other things. I do not understand this fetishization of criticism of EA.
Fair, but there was (and arguably still is) a disconnect here between the net karma and the number of comments (was about 0.5 karma-per-comment (kpc) when I posted my comment), as well as the net karma and the evidence that a number of users actually decided the Wenar article was worth reading (based on their engagement in the comments). I think itâs likely there is a decent correlation between âshould spend some on the frontpageâ /â âshould encourage people to linkpost this stuffâ on the one hand and âthis is worth commenting onâ /â âI read the linkposted article.â
The post you referenced has 0 active comments (1 was deleted), so the kpc is NaN and there is no evidence either way about users deciding to read the article. Of course, there are a number of posts that I find over-karmaâd and under-karmaâd, but relatively few have the objective disconnects described above. In addition, there is little reason to think your post received (m)any downvotes at allâits karma is 16 on 7 votes, as opposed to 33 on 27 for the current post (as of me writing this sentence). So the probability that its karma has been significantly affected by a disagree-ergo-downvote phenomenon seems pretty low.
Thereâs a lot of competition the âfrontpageâ regarding linked articles and direct posts by forum participants. I can understand why people would think this article should not be displacing other things. I do not understand this fetishization of criticism of EA.
For comparison, a link to an article by Peter Singer on businesses like Humanitix with charities in the shareholder position with some commentary that benefit charities got 16 cumulative karma. I donât understand why every self-flagellating post has to be a top post.
Fair, but there was (and arguably still is) a disconnect here between the net karma and the number of comments (was about 0.5 karma-per-comment (kpc) when I posted my comment), as well as the net karma and the evidence that a number of users actually decided the Wenar article was worth reading (based on their engagement in the comments). I think itâs likely there is a decent correlation between âshould spend some on the frontpageâ /â âshould encourage people to linkpost this stuffâ on the one hand and âthis is worth commenting onâ /â âI read the linkposted article.â
The post you referenced has 0 active comments (1 was deleted), so the kpc is NaN and there is no evidence either way about users deciding to read the article. Of course, there are a number of posts that I find over-karmaâd and under-karmaâd, but relatively few have the objective disconnects described above. In addition, there is little reason to think your post received (m)any downvotes at allâits karma is 16 on 7 votes, as opposed to 33 on 27 for the current post (as of me writing this sentence). So the probability that its karma has been significantly affected by a disagree-ergo-downvote phenomenon seems pretty low.