3 ms·

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

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.

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.