Location
  • San Luis Obispo,
  • California,
  • United States

Top Contributors

Good Comment

Apologies if this has been discussed or adressed elsewhere, but I'm curious what the "Good Comment" feature currently drives or what the plans are for the feature?   Not even sure if this is the best place to ask this question, but it's not enough of a concern for me to ask via the standard support route, so...

Thanks!
-Bob
View Previous CommentsLoad All Comments (29)
Rank: Prodigy

Expert Comment

_agx_2015-07-29 11:25 AMID: 1745751
@[ fanpages ]

> Why does it bother you that you are posting a comment on a Previously Asked Question "in the archives"? I can understand why you would not wish to post a "Thanks" message as it would detract from the discussion, but on a thread that is no longer active, perhaps adding your appreciation to indicate that the content has helped you may spark further comment from others

Like you say it depends on the question status and type of comment.  I have no problem adding comments that contribute something meaningful to the conversation - even if it is after the fact. For example, "solution X worked well for me, however in environment ABC, I also had to enable Y before this would work...".  However my adding a "Thank you! That last tip saved me pulling out the last few hairs on my head!" doesn't really contribute anything meaningful to the archives.  While a single comment probably would not hurt, it could easily get out of control and end up polluting the knowledge base.  I often read an entire thread because sometimes important details are not marked as the official "answer".  I don't want to have to scroll through 3 pages of "thanks..." on every thread just to locate relevant comments.  I'd like the ability thank the author for their comments,  but not if it just generates "noise" in the archives.
0
Rank: Master

Expert Comment

Netminder2015-07-29 05:41 PMID: 1745834
If there is/are a good comment on a post, but the post is wrong, is it possible to erase the good comment(s)?
No.
Alternatively, if a "Good Comment" tag is applied to a comment, & the comment is then edited, are any previous "Good Comment" tags removed?
No.
or even the more innocent "return the favor" upvoting
Good point, maybe getting into the need for down-votes as well?
One of these days, I'm going to find the Stanford study done on the reality of sites that up (and up/down) voting. It said, in essence, if a person or comment or question starts getting votes in either direction, then people will inevitably pile on, skewing the results. Unfortunately, Google LOVES voting -- so EE has to take that into account.

Personal opinion of no more value than anyone else's: I'm not a fan of voting, but I believe that if we're going to do voting, it should be public information AND should cut both ways. I don't have an issue with the level of anonymity we have at EE; I don't need to know anything more about fanpages of _agx_ than what they choose to share, because it's none of my business. But from the perspective of a member of EE, I DO believe that they should be responsible. If they like something and choose to vote yes on it, then the person whose comment/question is being voted for has an expectation of who did so. And if that's the case, then so should voting No.

Has the use of "Good Comment" been posted somewhere?
Not that I can find in a quick search. On the other hand, except for displaying how many good comment votes a comment has gotten, it doesn't have any impact on anything, so that kind of makes sense.

N
0
Rank: Prodigy

Expert Comment

> One of these days, I'm going to find the Stanford study done on the reality of sites that up (and up/down) voting.

How Community Feedback Shapes User Behavior
Justin Cheng (Stanford University), Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil (Max Planck Institute SWS), Jure Leskovec (Stanford University)

This article is Copyright 2014, Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (www.aaai.org). All rights reserved. I'm posting the Abstract and a few key snippets under "Fair Use". Regards, Joe

Abstract

Social media systems rely on user feedback and rating mechanisms for personalization, ranking, and content filtering. However, when users evaluate content contributed by fellow users (e.g., by liking a post or voting on a comment), these evaluations create complex social feedback effects. This paper investigates how ratings on a piece of content affect its author’s future behavior. By studying four large comment-based news communities, we find that negative feedback leads to significant behavioral changes that are detrimental to the community. Not only do authors of negatively-evaluated content contribute more, but also their future posts are of lower quality, and are perceived by the community as such. Moreover, these authors are more likely to subsequently evaluate their fellow users negatively, percolating these effects through the community. In contrast, positive feedback does not carry similar effects, and neither encourages rewarded authors to write more, nor improves the quality of their posts. Interestingly, the authors that receive no feedback are most likely to leave a community. Furthermore, a structural analysis of the voter network reveals that evaluations polarize the community the most when positive and negative votes are equally split.

Snippet#1

Our findings so far suggest that negative feedback worsens the quality of future interactions in the community as punished users post more frequently. As we will discuss next, these detrimental effects are exacerbated by the changes in the voting behavior of evaluated users.

Snippet#2

Tit-for-tat. As users receive feedback, both their posting and voting behavior is affected. When comparing the fraction of up-votes received by a user with the fraction of upvotes given by a user, we find a strong linear correlation (Figure 7). This suggests that user behavior is largely "tit-for-tat". If a user is negatively/positively evaluated, she in turn will negatively/positively evaluate others.

Snippet#3

Overall, punished users not only change their posting behavior, but also their voting behavior by becoming more likely to evaluate their fellow users negatively. Such behavior can percolate the detrimental effects of negative feedback through the community.
0
Rank: Master

Expert Comment

Netminder2015-07-29 06:15 PMID: 1745841
Joe,

Thanks... but that's not the same study (although it's certainly related). The one I saw had a site that made it SO much more interesting (which is why I remember it).

N
0
Rank: Prodigy

Expert Comment

> SO much more interesting

hehe...note the first Reference in this study:
Anderson, A.; Huttenlocher, D.; Kleinberg, J.; and Leskovec, J. 2012a. Discovering Value from Community Activity on Focused Question Answering Sites: A Case Study of Stack Overflow. In Proc. KDD.

May be downloaded here:
http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/kdd12-qa.pdf

Two of the four authors are from Stanford, two from Cornell.
0
Rank: Master

Expert Comment

Netminder2015-07-29 09:02 PMID: 1745852
That's the one... *grin*

As one of many prototypical examples, a question like “How do you format a JSON date in jQuery?” on Stack Overflow generates multiple useful responses; the answerers and subsequent commenters then differentiate among the several approaches and debate their relative merits. In this respect, the full set of answers constitutes an investigation of issues relevant to the original question that would be lost if any one of the answers — even a very good one — were viewed in isolation. Thus, when one talks about the creation of long-lasting value on a site like Stack Overflow, we claim that it is the question as well as all the corresponding answers [emphasis added] that together bring long-lasting value to the site.

And that's what makes EE so valuable... and what, in my not-always-very-humble-opinion, makes TOS a site that's been propped up by the long-standing relationship between its founders and the people responsible for managing the Google search algorithms. Value and quality are added by the discussion; EE's systems have always encouraged that (in sharp contrast to TOS). EE celebrates distinct perspectives and respectful disagreements; TOS approaches problems as if there is a single perfect solution. EE has always recognized the value of the discussion, both as a tool for teaching and a methodology of discovery and problem-solving; to TOS, that's "off-topic" and worthy only of down-voting and deletion. EE is about someone with expertise providing ME a solution to MY problem; TOS doesn't give a rat's *ss about either, just that the guy who answers questions "The TOS Way" will get more of a "reputation" -- even if he doesn't know sh*t from apple butter.

I will be the first to stipulate that we have our share of warts -- but I also have confidence that they'll be fixed. But our foundation -- the underlying premise of our community -- is far more solid, and will be around long after TOS' owners get tired of paying for it.
0