Broken Sentence:
As a result , and important comments sometimes get ignored
|
But online discussions are often less effective than in-person conversations. If we are all in the same room, I can look each person in the eye and see who is listening and engaged, and expect immediate responses to what I say (even if the response is overt silence). But in an online group discussion, I don't even know who is "listening", let alone when or if they will respond. As a result , and **important comments sometimes get ignored**. |
The link doesn't exist: https://social-protocols.org/distributed-bayesian-reasoning-introduction
The critical thread seems to be oversimplified. There could be many of those important threads, each discussing a different poll option. I suggest removing the critical-thread part altogether.
Who decides that a comment is worth showing to all participants? In theory this can be automatically detected, by measuring which comment has changed a vote. But which are the candidates in the first place? It sounds like a core group has to participate and read all the comments to decide which ones are shown to everybody else. But who is this core group and who is everybody else?
Broken Sentence:
The link doesn't exist: https://social-protocols.org/distributed-bayesian-reasoning-introduction
The critical thread seems to be oversimplified. There could be many of those important threads, each discussing a different poll option. I suggest removing the critical-thread part altogether.
Who decides that a comment is worth showing to all participants? In theory this can be automatically detected, by measuring which comment has changed a vote. But which are the candidates in the first place? It sounds like a core group has to participate and read all the comments to decide which ones are shown to everybody else. But who is this core group and who is everybody else?