9 ms·

And the imaginary internet points incentive system HN uses implicitly incentivizes those posts. One way to stop this would be to have people who post low-value

• rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Ehhh I think HN already directs too much of the discourse. I understand the intent of minimum karma downvoting, for example, but I think that encourages elitism, because if you have to be validated with 500 karma before you can downvote, then the implication is that you're in a class of people that's better than others and you don't feel you have to explain yourself. EDIT: like how this comment is being silently downvoted now. I would like to think that the HN community has a wicked sense of humor.
  • collyw 11y ago
    Digg started off well but went downhill very rapidly without that "elitism".
  • johnmaguire2013 11y ago
    Downvoting of this comment only makes sense to me if someone disagrees with you. And on that note, is that what downvoting on HN is for? Other link aggregators typically say downvoting isn't for disagreements; that's what commenting is for.
    • rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      I've only downvoted someone once, and that was for a snarky, 5-word top-level comment that did nothing to expand the conversation - the kind of downvote that is exempt from explanation. But then there are people who silently disagree via downvote. To that I ask what the purpose must be. "I think you're wrong" - How? Why? Is it my tone? Lack of evidence? To me, downvoting without explaining is just a smug way to feel less insecure about one's own opinions without having to stand up for anything.
      • kbenson 11y ago
        I find that downvotes generally account for well below 10% of my voting, and I use them mostly to denote needed correction in tone or presentation, or repeated endorsement of a "fact" without reference after it's been asked for. Even then, I'll only do so after leaving a comment or confirming someone else has a comment that covers my reasoning for downvoting. Without some explanation, it's far to easy to assume downvotes are due to disagreement on what is all to often a subjective item, which doesn't really help the discussion at all. A Poll on people's downvoting behavior would be interesting, but as it would be self-reporting and subjective, the results would be next to meaningless if mundane.
• tptacek 11y ago
  "Worst. HN. Suggestion. Ever."
  • tedks 11y ago
    This is a perfect example of a comment that should have maybe a 1/100 chance of getting someone banned. 1. It contributes nothing. 2. It's a pop culture reference. 3. It comes from an HN brand that can be reliably expected to farm karma basically anywhere via name recognition alone.
• krapp 11y ago
  Punishing people for gaming the system as it's intended to be gamed would be counterproductive, because the karma system itself is based on flawed assumptions. The expectation here is that high karma indicates high intellectual quality, but that's demonstrably false. It doesn't do what it's intended to do and even detracts from the value of discussion in some places. A better way to improve content quality would be to stop using karma altogether, but I understand that's deeply baked into the culture, and probably not likely. Removing the visibility of karma scores might be an adequate compromise. Upvoting, downvoting and sorting would work perfectly fine without the temptation of a score. Hacker News has enough passive aggressive attempts at operant conditioning as it is - the fading of text posts to discourage "blogging" is one egregious example. If you don't want people to farm karma, get rid of karma. If you want to expect more quality and better engagement from users, treat them like people and not like mice in a Skinner box.
  • nine_k 11y ago
    Karma is the worst known proxy to expectations of reasonable behavior, except for all other proxies that have been tried. It's basically a linear prediction model: someone who behaved reasonably in the past is expected to continue doing so. This is not always true, of course, but I beg anyone suggest a more precise model that can be realistically implemented. Another purpose of karma is preventing a bot from registering 1000 accounts and using them immediatley for insistent mass downvoting. Of course, one can build rings of bot accounts that upvote each other to gain karma before operation, but this takes much more determination and skill than an internet hooligan usually possesses.
    • rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
      When I was new to HN I thought downvoting just didn't exist here, and I actually preferred that. Arguments that are liked get bubbled up, while inflammatory comments get ignored or slapped down by reasonable people.
    • dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Of course, one can build rings of bot accounts that upvote each other to gain karma before operation, but this takes much more determination and skill than an internet hooligan usually possesses. Also, ISTR mentions that HN employs voting ring detectors, and punishes detected voting rings to avoid exactly this phenomenon. So, its not just the passive difficulty that is an issue with this approach, there is active opposition.
• JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Those posts can serve as a jumping-off point for thoughtful discussion.
• nine_k 11y ago
  Research says that infrequent and severe punishment results in an increase of the punishable behavior; it's quick, clear and consistent, but not severe, punishment that actually curbs the punishable behavior. I wish downvotes here could be only cast with a comment explaining the reason, to improve clarity.
  • rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
    I'm in huge agreement. Even if it's a drop-down to select off topic, abusive, etc, it would be so much better than the smug silence of an unexplained downvote.
  • tedks 11y ago
    That's certainly true for criminology, but I'm talking about operant conditioning. What we want is the opposite of a slot machine.