Timeline for The Association Bonus
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 11, 2013 at 17:05 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | @Manishearth: I believe the number of people on the internet who think they understand research-level mathematics is much higher than the number who actually do. They often have an impressionistic, vague understanding and enjoy reading about mathematics research. There are enough such people to overwhelm MO if they all really wanted to participate, but you're right that that's not going to happen. On the other hand, I think it's much safer to set up reasonable rules now, rather than waiting to see whether a serious problem develops (at which point it will be much more difficult to fix it). | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 16:56 | comment | added | Kim Morrison Mod | @Manishearth, I think you might be underestimating the number of people who think they understand some mathematics. This is a field particularly prone to incompetence so severe as to make recognizing one's own incompetence impossible. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 15:21 | comment | added | Manishearth | @HenryCohn Re:the second issue: why would someone waste time reading a random site that they don't understand? And the cases where someone is deluded/etc are low, I don't see that happening often. My point is that people only come here and vote if they have interesting stuff to read (which will only happen in the case of "hot" questions). People won't read without motivation. With that in mind, I don't think that there will ever be a flood of bad votes. A small trickle, maybe. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 14:19 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | A second issue is that even if people did vote only on things they genuinely understood, adding a voting contingent of people with no research-level background just distorts the voting system and makes the site less research-focused. I don't think this is as problematic as deluded voting, but it would itself be a good reason to eliminate the association bonus on MO. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 14:15 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | @Manishearth: There are certainly reasons not to let someone vote just because they think they understand the posts here to an appreciable degree. One is that they may be deluded: anyone who has to ask why $A \cup B = B$ and $A \subset B$ are equivalent is incapable of judging whether they understand MO questions. Note that this question was asked one week ago, so if it was a honest question at all, then the person who asked it has no business voting on MO a week later. Unfortunately, the world is full of people who like math and have delusional beliefs about their own understanding. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 10:59 | comment | added | Manishearth | @MarkMeckes s/most/greaterthanfive :) | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 10:55 | comment | added | Mark Meckes | @Manishearth: Understanding most of the posts on MO is a ridiculously ambitious goal --- most mathematicians wouldn't. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 10:40 | comment | added | Manishearth | Of course, I'm talking about persistent voters. I myself don't understand (hope to someday) most of the posts here, but I've voted for a couple that are within my league. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 10:39 | comment | added | Manishearth | @AsafKaragila I know. However, it's been my experience that the only effect people from other sites have is when a question goes "hot". If someone is able to understand the posts here to an appreciable degree, then there's no reason not to let them vote. If someone is trying to troll by voting randomly -- well, fortunately people usually aren't that bored in life. If someone doesn't understand the posts here, I don't see any reason other than trolling for them to come and vote for stuff. Why would you waste time on a site where you're not learning anything or sharing any knowledge? | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 9:35 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | I don't think that @Steven is talking about sockpuppets. I'm thinking that he points out that people who know absolutely nothing about research level mathematics get a say in what is a good question or answer on a research mathematics site. This is an actual problem, even if at the moment there are only a few users which do that, it doesn't mean that September is very far. It is perfectly reasonable that it's coming right for us, or don't. But it might. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 4:02 | comment | added | Manishearth | @steven not quite what I meant -- IMO there is no problem in the first place to fix (so I'm against that change personally) but yeah. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 3:09 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | Manishearth: Good point! I'm totally on board with eliminating the points for suggested edits. :) | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 2:49 | comment | added | Manishearth | FWIW, it's easier to get thr 15 rep required to vote via suggested edits than it is to gear u sockpuppets on other sites. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 2:48 | comment | added | Manishearth | @steven The voting power isn't the upside. The upside is commenting and the removal of new user restrictions (which are in place to prevent spammers) | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 2:30 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | But even if the downside of the association bonus is small (which I'm still not convinced of), the upside seems to be virtually nonexistent. Anyone who shows up here with the knowledge and the willingness to participate usefully is able to vote very quickly, with or without the association bonus. Pretty much the only thing the association bonus adds, as far as I can tell, is voting power for the sort of user who needs to ask for an explanation of why $A\subset B$ is equivalent to $A\cup B=B$. | |
| Jul 11, 2013 at 0:31 | history | answered | Manishearth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |