Shower thought: How much are new posts evaluated based on authors’ old reputation?
We could find out if all posts were anonymous for a duration of x weeks and posts could only be upvoted during that time. [If it’s considered important that posts can be upvoted later as well, then there could be a second karma tally for the non-anonymous period after the anonymous one.]
If authors’ posts get a similar number of upvotes compared to when their names were public, then that’s a sign that every post is evaluated independently.
Whether it’s good or bad to evaluate posts based on the author is unclear imo:
- good, because it’s a quick style filter, e.g. I’m in the mood to read a post, what shall I read? Well I will read this author’s post, because I liked all their previous posts, and I reasonably believe that I will like their new post.
- bad, because it biases evaluations in favour of posts by high status people, and does not evaluate posts on merit alone.