This is a special post for quick takes by Bruce Friedrich 🔸. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
Should "agree" and "disagree" be anonymous?
What's the reason that "agree" and "disagree" are anonymous? I find it frustrating when someone clicks the "disagree" button, and then there's no accompanying post to explain the disagreement. I assume that most (all? almost all?) people on the forum would be happy to own their disagreements here, and that would also be good for transparency, etc. Curious to hear others' thoughts (and worried that I'm being incredibly obtuse).
I disagree-voted, here is my explanation of why:
It is good for people to write a comment explaining their disagreement. But if you de-anonymize agree-voting, the main outcome won't be that people explain their reasoning; it will be that people stop voting. Some people will not feel comfortable attaching their name to a dissenting vote.
I think it's better to make it easy for people to leave cheap anonymous signals. Writing an explanatory comment should be encouraged but not required.
I appreciate you explaining your disagree vote, Michael - thank you. I thought it would be really funny if folks just flooded my comment with disagree votes, with no explanation, LOL.
That said, it seems to me that the value of an anonymous disagree vote is negligible (or perhaps even negative), unless there's an explanation. What do you see as the value of "cheap anonymous signals"?
Here's why I think they're not valuable (and likely counter-productive):
For a lengthy post (i.e., this one) where someone clicks "disagree," I guess it's just with the top-line message? I don't know if that assumption is correct. And even if it is, I don't know why they disagree. Does this add to understanding in some way? Or is there some other value I'm not seeing?
If someone simply wrote "No" as their comment (the practical effect of a disagree vote, I think), is that a useful contribution? I think that would run afoul of the forum's posting guidance in multiple ways. How is an anonymous disagree vote different from that?
There are forum principles around respectful disagreement and general EA principles around transparency. Anonymous disagree votes feel to me like they violate both of those.
What principles do anonymous disagree votes uphold?
This is for anyone, of course, not just Michael!
At least in some cases it's clear what a disagree-vote means, and it's often a useful signal to know how many people agree or disagree. Especially if there's something I haven't really thought about, and seeing the votes gives a quick vibe check.
For a lengthy post (i.e., this one) where someone clicks "disagree," I guess it's just with the top-line message? I don't know if that assumption is correct.
Yes I share this frustration. I often see agree-votes or disagree-votes that I don't know how to interpret. LessWrong has the ability to (non-anonymously) highlight specific passages and agree-vote or disagree-vote just those passages, which I like.
Should "agree" and "disagree" be anonymous?
What's the reason that "agree" and "disagree" are anonymous? I find it frustrating when someone clicks the "disagree" button, and then there's no accompanying post to explain the disagreement. I assume that most (all? almost all?) people on the forum would be happy to own their disagreements here, and that would also be good for transparency, etc. Curious to hear others' thoughts (and worried that I'm being incredibly obtuse).
At least in some cases it's clear what a disagree-vote means, and it's often a useful signal to know how many people agree or disagree. Especially if there's something I haven't really thought about, and seeing the votes gives a quick vibe check.
Yes I share this frustration. I often see agree-votes or disagree-votes that I don't know how to interpret. LessWrong has the ability to (non-anonymously) highlight specific passages and agree-vote or disagree-vote just those passages, which I like.