4 ms·

It's pretty consistent. See for example my recent comment on a Parkinson's treatment where I said "there's fuck all evidence that it works", mentioning the plac

It's pretty consistent. See for example my recent comment on a Parkinson's treatment where I said "there's fuck all evidence that it works", mentioning the placebo effect and overhyped science, which has -2. Perhaps people are offended by the swear word (which I thought was appropriate in the circumstances)? Perhaps I need to write a whole spiel explaining the placebo effect so I don't get instantly downvoted (I don't really have the time for that)? This happens every time, and it's a little irritating. I had a quick look at your comments and didn't see any comments such as this. ("downvoted into oblivion" is perhaps an exaggeration. I'm talking about -2 or -3 votes for a comment).

DanBC 11y ago
Yes, those were unfair downvotes. I'm guessing the shortness of your comment and the negativity without sources made a difference? But that's just a guess.
- kazinator 11y ago
  That's how the site works. If thousands of users think nothing of your comment, but two downvote it, there you go: two downvotes. On HN, bland comments which attract no upvotes have to be spotlessly inoffensive to every imaginable mindset so that they survive the 24 hour "statute of limitations" for downvotes. ... keeping in mind that some people punish blandness itself with a downvote!
  - cpncrunch 11y ago
    Yes, that makes sense (and thanks for your other, longer explanation, kazinator). I still feel that downvotes should have an explanation attached, as there is some negativity expressed in downvoting, but I realise that probably isn't going to happen.
kazinator 11y ago
The -2 means that a couple of people (out of an unknown number) didn't like something. For example, some people don't agree with you and think that it's never appropriate to use foul language. Most of the time you get downvotes on something, the number of downvotes is small. Only the cases where something is massively downvoted and flagged out of existence can be readily explained. Suppose 5000 people look at your posting and almost all of them agree that sometimes it is appropriate to swear, and your posting is one of those occasions: but two out of those 5000 don't agree, and downvote you. Well, there you go: you have the tacit support of 4998/5000 readers (just not enough to give you an upvote for it) and two downvotes. Being acceptable to the majority in some "common sense" way is not enough to spare your comment. Either your comment has to have appeal so that it attracts upvotes from a significant segment of the site readers who come across it, or, failing that, a comment which doesn't attract upvotes, has to avoid raising the ire of minorities. (Regarding the use "minorities": I'm using that here to denote absolutely any rare trait, background or world outlook whatsoever (where "rare" doesn't mean "odd" or "strange"); I am not specifically referring to "ethnic minorities".) For the above reasons, situations where a comment is reduced to 0, -1 or even -2 are not always easily explained, other than by the general remark that it is probably less than "spotlessly inoffensive". (Imagine the ways in which some element in the comment might rub someone somewhere the wrong way, and you have a halfway plausible explanation.) Only when some comment is massively flagged out of existence is there an obvious plausible explanation.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

DanBC 11y ago

Yes, those were unfair downvotes. I'm guessing the shortness of your comment and the negativity without sources made a difference? But that's just a guess.

kazinator 11y ago
That's how the site works. If thousands of users think nothing of your comment, but two downvote it, there you go: two downvotes. On HN, bland comments which attract no upvotes have to be spotlessly inoffensive to every imaginable mindset so that they survive the 24 hour "statute of limitations" for downvotes. ... keeping in mind that some people punish blandness itself with a downvote!
- cpncrunch 11y ago
  Yes, that makes sense (and thanks for your other, longer explanation, kazinator). I still feel that downvotes should have an explanation attached, as there is some negativity expressed in downvoting, but I realise that probably isn't going to happen.

kazinator 11y ago

The -2 means that a couple of people (out of an unknown number) didn't like something. For example, some people don't agree with you and think that it's never appropriate to use foul language. Most of the time you get downvotes on something, the number of downvotes is small. Only the cases where something is massively downvoted and flagged out of existence can be readily explained. Suppose 5000 people look at your posting and almost all of them agree that sometimes it is appropriate to swear, and your posting is one of those occasions: but two out of those 5000 don't agree, and downvote you. Well, there you go: you have the tacit support of 4998/5000 readers (just not enough to give you an upvote for it) and two downvotes. Being acceptable to the majority in some "common sense" way is not enough to spare your comment. Either your comment has to have appeal so that it attracts upvotes from a significant segment of the site readers who come across it, or, failing that, a comment which doesn't attract upvotes, has to avoid raising the ire of minorities. (Regarding the use "minorities": I'm using that here to denote absolutely any rare trait, background or world outlook whatsoever (where "rare" doesn't mean "odd" or "strange"); I am not specifically referring to "ethnic minorities".) For the above reasons, situations where a comment is reduced to 0, -1 or even -2 are not always easily explained, other than by the general remark that it is probably less than "spotlessly inoffensive". (Imagine the ways in which some element in the comment might rub someone somewhere the wrong way, and you have a halfway plausible explanation.) Only when some comment is massively flagged out of existence is there an obvious plausible explanation.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]