| 1 |
Hm, the research results appear a bit strange to me. Other source links:
|
1 |
Hm, the research results appear a bit strange to me. Other source links:
|
| 2 |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/09/online_forum_comment_study/
|
2 |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/09/online_forum_comment_study/
|
| 3 |
http://seanjtaylor.com/post/57714926977/science-paper-on-social-influence-bias
|
3 |
http://seanjtaylor.com/post/57714926977/science-paper-on-social-influence-bias
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
First off, there's an average of 3 votes per comment, they also claimed to have moderated (up, down or nothing) each of the over 100,000 comments, while other users provided around 300,000 votes. That's a [i]massive[/i] intervention.
|
5 |
First off, there's an average of 3 votes per comment, they also claimed to have moderated (up, down or nothing) each of the over 100,000 comments, while other users provided around 300,000 votes. That's a [i]massive[/i] intervention.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
Now, i don't think they were that stupid, but if the average comment gets 3 votes, you upvote a random subset and then look at the [u]final score[/u] (it explicitely says so) of those upvoted comments, what would you expect? Around 25% increase, right? Did they just measure their own votes?
|
7 |
Now, i don't think they were that stupid, but if the average comment gets 3 votes, you upvote a random subset and then look at the [u]final score[/u] (it explicitely says so) of those upvoted comments, what would you expect? Around 25% increase, right? Did they just measure their own votes?
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
That aside, i find it hard to see the 25% increase from control to up-treated in this graphic: http://i.imgur.com/J4GH4ew.png
|
9 |
That aside, i find it hard to see the 25% increase from control to up-treated in this graphic: http://i.imgur.com/J4GH4ew.png
|
| 10 |
I mean, the density of the deep black areas is hard to estimate, but 25% should definitely look a bit more pronounced.
|
10 |
I mean, the density of the deep black areas is hard to estimate, but 25% should definitely look a bit more pronounced.
|
| 11 |
\n
|
11 |
\n
|
| 12 |
Assuming they did their homework and didn't count their own votes in final scores, then this study wants to tell me that upvoting something gives it, on average, 25% more votes compared to not upvoting it. If i were to run another "random vote bot" on the same studied group, would the effect stack (i'm aware the double-upvoted sample will become smaller each time)? Would a comment that receives 2 random upvotes get, on average, 56% more final score?
|
12 |
Assuming they did their homework and didn't count their own votes in final scores, then this study wants to tell me that upvoting something gives it, on average, 25% more votes compared to not upvoting it. If i were to run another "random vote bot" on the same studied group, would the effect stack (i'm aware the double-upvoted sample will become smaller each time)? Would a comment that receives 2 random upvotes get, on average, 56% more final score?
|
| 13 |
\n
|
13 |
\n
|
| 14 |
Granted, the fact that other people's opinions (massively) affects your own opinion is nothing new.
|
14 |
Granted, the fact that other people's opinions (massively) affects your own opinion is nothing new.
|
| 15 |
[img=http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikifriends.png]It's crazy how much my gut opinion of a movie/song is swayed by what other people say, regardless of how I felt coming out of the theater.[/img]
|
15 |
[img=http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikifriends.png]It's crazy how much my gut opinion of a movie/song is swayed by what other people say, regardless of how I felt coming out of the theater.[/img]
|
| 16 |
http://xkcd.com/185/
|
16 |
http://xkcd.com/185/
|
| 17 |
\n
|
17 |
\n
|
| 18 |
PS:
Is
there
a
way
to
have
image
alt
texts?
|
18 |
PS:
Is
there
a
way
to
have
image
alt
texts?
Edit:
Thanks
mojjj.
It's
not
producing
erroneous
results,
however
i
don't
get
an
alt-text
while
mousing
over
either.
Image
info
shows
me
it's
there,
but.
.
.
|
Study finds online commentards easily duped, manipulated