Timeline for If more users could vote, would they engage more? Testing 1 reputation voting on some sites
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 27, 2023 at 2:03 | comment | added | benrg | r/AskHistorians does have high quality answers, but they achieve that by having mods who aggressively delete anything not meeting their standards, not by democratic voting. | |
| Sep 26, 2023 at 17:52 | comment | added | Stevoisiak | @NoDataDumpNoContribution I've edited my answer to use AskHistorians as my example, a Reddit community known for high quality answers to domain specific questions. | |
| Sep 26, 2023 at 17:50 | history | edited | Stevoisiak | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 55 characters in body |
| Sep 20, 2023 at 22:09 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "this can work since it's essentially the same system Reddit uses" Reddit is known for high quality answers to specific domain questions? Then I just got it wrong all the time. I always only see highly entertaining content without much depth and there everyone can vote makes sense, but maybe not here. The experiment might be able to show that if the results can be interpreted in a clear manner. | |
| Sep 20, 2023 at 21:57 | comment | added | starball Mod | @KevinB but it also says "aren't voted on by experts" | |
| Sep 20, 2023 at 21:18 | comment | added | user400654 | my interpretation was, by increasing voting in general, you're reducing the ratio of the votes that are coming from "experts", assuming we're calling users with high "reputation" within the tag experts, but, that's kinda "the goal" i think | |
| Sep 20, 2023 at 20:25 | comment | added | starball Mod | it's not clear to me why this experiment would cause highly-voted-on-answers to be less voted on by experts. can you elaborate on your thought process? | |
| Sep 20, 2023 at 18:15 | history | answered | Stevoisiak | CC BY-SA 4.0 |