Also, what happens if you try to optimize for "people I know are good readers understanding" instead of "minimize Internet static"? I'd worry that the latter is too noisy (hah) for most improvements to be noticeable
-
-
Replying to @benskuhn
I think that this may result in fewer of what you call good readers because of the way so much traffic is driven through news aggregators & social media. I think (?) a lot of people decide what to read based on reading the comments and/or the title and
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
from having spent too much time commenting, I've noticed that a seeming refutation will get upvoted about the same regardless of whether or not it's right, and if someone replies with a seeming counter-refutation, the upvote rate will slow down, again regardless of correcntess
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
People don't seem to actually care about the information in the comment and judge things by how right-sounding the comment is. I think (?) an incorrect refutation that sits at the top of a comment section will cause people to not read the article.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If I have some anti-nitpick clause about the thing someone is complaining about, on HN, someone will respond that this was addressed in the article, which will become the top response and knock out the comment
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If it's on reddit, the 2nd level response won't get any traction unless it's humorous and there's no effect, and on slashdot the 2nd level response usually won't happen, and if it does, it will end up +2 vs. a +5, insightful or something
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Maybe this doesn't actually matter? It's hard to tell. But I think that potential readers sometimes don't read because the top comment is something like "this guy obviously doesn't know anything about CPUs since this idea was first seen in 1973".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This also maybe doesn't matter as much nowadays (if it ever did) because most of my traffic no longer comes from news aggregators now that my blog has been around for a long time.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danluu
I'm not sure we're considering the same counterfactuals. The stuff you just said seems like an argument in favor of making caveats more noticeable (thus increasing the likelihood of level-2 comments)? I think the thing I'm proposing (being more explicit abt structure) does that?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benskuhn
To summarize, the argument (possibly wrong, but IMO plausible): 1. No amount of visibility is sufficient to prevent a flood of nitpicking, not even having the 2nd sentence stating the opposite of the expected nitpick 2. Having stuff in the main body is a distraction 3. boo 280 :(
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
3. Having stuff somewhere will usually get someone to respond to the nitpick, which is as much as I can hope for.
-
-
Anyway, I tried making that change to this post, but I think that it will be hard to notice if it makes a difference because there's so much volatility. Also, this post seems doomed to have low traffic (I suspect) most people will stop reading once they see the baseball content
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.