OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


Dahlen 3 May 2015 01:28 PM
79%

That's not true for any website with a rating system that I use. Most edits do not modify the central meaning of the message, instead being about something minor like typos or additions to the text. Everybody is aware that people might quote their messages in their own posts just as they might make an edit, and the edit system is basically never egregiously abused. There are really lots of upsides and no plausible downsides.

(Mostly unrelated: I didn't try it out, but it seems to me that one can rate one's own posts. Why? And why do I see a significantly low probability rating for my own posts?)

stars0
Reply


admin 4 May 2015 05:18 AM
70%

"Most edits do not modify the central meaning of the message, instead being about something minor like typos or additions to the text. "

You might be right, we'll think more about it.


"I didn't try it out, but it seems to me that one can rate one's own posts. "

No, self-ratings are not accepted.


"And why do I see a significantly low probability rating for my own posts?"

In principle, this could happen if you negatively rate most of what you read (this puts your baseline lower) or if most people whose preferences are similar to yours (i.e., the ratings are correlated) give low ratings to your posts. Also, at this point our database is still too small to give very accurate predictions (in particular, for comments that have few or zero ratings).


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 4 May 2015 02:29 PM
61%

If self-ratings are not accepted they should not be possible on the interface.

I interpret the answer to the self-scoring as "Working as intended. The system thinks you think you write bad posts".

stars0
Reply


admin 5 May 2015 09:37 AM
70%

Obviously, we could give an automatic 100% for one’s own comments. But we did not do it for two reasons:

1)This is essentially cheating.

2) It is quite possible that the same comment would not have been liked as much by its actual author if it were written by another.


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 6 May 2015 03:01 AM
56%

I didn't mean that it should be otherwise. You are implictly assuming that a person would 5 star all of his posts. Am I supposed to make pure gold on each post? That kind of thinking would support an interpretation that the star rating is a "likelihood I would have written a post just like this".

There might also be that certain percentage thresholds give some psychological impression that is not supported by the way it's calculated. Should I be equally favourful of posts that have the same percentage as my posts?

stars0
Reply


admin 10 May 2015 06:20 AM
67%

People tend to be biased when they evaluate their own skills. For instance, in one poll 86% of people rated themselves “above average” drivers. I suspect that on average people might rate the same content differently depending on whether they or someone else is its author.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 9 May 2015 11:26 AM
60%

There are really lots of upsides and no plausible downsides.

Especially if it's possible to see the edit log.


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 4 May 2015 02:31 PM
56%

For political content even the possibility of it happening is more weigthy.

stars0
Reply