Karma seems to be mostly a proxy metric for engagement. It keeps the site alive. While I see the allure of a prediction track record, I think self-preservation is even more important.
Engagement is what all the big social media sites optimize for. The positive feedback loop of more user-generated content pulling in more users is the growth engine.
I only rarely visit LessWrong. Are controversial submissions more successful?
The danger of a focus on prediction track record would be that less content is generated because low-track-record users get ignored anyways. That means less content to react to and the feedback loop means the site gets abandoned.
This is why I consider a focus on engagement and growth as self-preservation.
This is intriguing question and one I'd have to ponder. "What value is good argumentation if it does not help you predict anything?" is what comes to mind. However, my main counter is to the framing of question itself: why do you want to get quick sense of somebody's track record? Why not just judge the writing on its on merit? In that vain, maybe LessWrong should have an anonymous mode!
> As I understand it , he sees getting top contributors to build forecasting track records as less useful compared to careful writing and the reading of such writing. I see forecasting as a useful focus and a clearer way of ranking individuals.
To clarify, do you think top contributors spending time on forecasting on LessWrong would be more useful than them spending that time on careful writing and reading of such writing?
Karma seems to be mostly a proxy metric for engagement. It keeps the site alive. While I see the allure of a prediction track record, I think self-preservation is even more important.
Thus, I'm tending towards Habryka's position.
Can you add a few statements here on what you mean by self-preservation?
Engagement is what all the big social media sites optimize for. The positive feedback loop of more user-generated content pulling in more users is the growth engine.
I only rarely visit LessWrong. Are controversial submissions more successful?
The danger of a focus on prediction track record would be that less content is generated because low-track-record users get ignored anyways. That means less content to react to and the feedback loop means the site gets abandoned.
This is why I consider a focus on engagement and growth as self-preservation.
Thank you.
Predictions vs writing/argumentation.
This is intriguing question and one I'd have to ponder. "What value is good argumentation if it does not help you predict anything?" is what comes to mind. However, my main counter is to the framing of question itself: why do you want to get quick sense of somebody's track record? Why not just judge the writing on its on merit? In that vain, maybe LessWrong should have an anonymous mode!
I suppose the thing I really want is to know who to listen to in future discussions and to help me personally think better.
I am not sure that LessWrong provides that.
> As I understand it , he sees getting top contributors to build forecasting track records as less useful compared to careful writing and the reading of such writing. I see forecasting as a useful focus and a clearer way of ranking individuals.
To clarify, do you think top contributors spending time on forecasting on LessWrong would be more useful than them spending that time on careful writing and reading of such writing?
Yes, probably. I think it might humble them a little.