6 ms·

>you never ever ever implement a downvote button of any kind. People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views. Why is it acce

>you never ever ever implement a downvote button of any kind. People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views. Why is it acceptable to have a +1 button but not a -1 button? Why can people agree without giving any reason for their agreement but they can't disagree without giving any reason for their agreement? It's crazy that society works in this way and that people have such an irrational response to disagreement.

joepie91_ 11y ago
> People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views. Why is it acceptable to have a +1 button but not a -1 button? Why can people agree without giving any reason for their agreement but they can't disagree without giving any reason for their agreement? Because when you agree, that means the argument has already been presented - specifically, it's the argument that you are agreeing with. That is not the case for disagreement, where a counter-argument must exist, but has not been voiced yet. Agreement and disagreement aren't superficial opposites like you're presenting them to be.
- adnzzzzZ 11y ago
  >That is not the case for disagreement The reason why Github added these votes in the first place is so that people can give a signal of how welcome or not a certain change is to the project. If you only provide the signal for agreement but remove the signaling for disagreement and make it costly, then you'll get more people voting one way than the other. If it costs more to disagree then you're already rigging the game towards agreement.
  - joepie91_ 11y ago
    Sure, but that is already the case - posting a :+1: costs much less effort than writing a counter-argument (and is already widely socially accepted, spammy-ness aside). The addition of an upvote button doesn't change this. That's not to say that I wouldn't like that bias resolved, but it's a bias that exists precisely because of the difference between 'agreement' and 'disagreement' that I described, and I'm not sure it can be solved in a technical manner.
    - adnzzzzZ 11y ago
      How does enhancing the bias solve the issue? By not adding the downvote button this bias is enhanced. By adding the downvote button this bias is diminished. It's not a perfect solution but it's better than doing nothing.
      - joepie91_ 11y ago
        How do you see adding a button enhancing this bias? People already barely leave -1 replies without arguments.
  - pygy_ 11y ago
    If there is such a strong counter argument, someone will make it (see XKCD 386) and it will be possible to upvote the dissenting opinion.
  - joeyespo 11y ago
    -1 ... If I left the above with no further explanation, it doesn't give you any signal as to why I disagreed with you. One the other hand, if we were having this conversation on GitHub, people who agreed with my counter-point could react with a +1, giving you a much stronger signal about what exactly the disagreement is about. And once someone provides a valuable counter-argument, it's no longer "rigged toward agreement." Compared to an explanation with several +1's, a drive-by -1 adds virtually nothing to the discussion because they carry so little information.
    - adnzzzzZ 11y ago
      Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you as much as people don't have to give you a signal on why they agree with you. I don't get this argument. People may agree with 2 out of 5 things in a list and vote +1 because they don't care about the 3 other things. You still don't get that feedback from a +1, just like you won't get from a -1. There shouldn't be higher standards for disagreement based on reasons because the same doesn't exist for agreement.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - joepie91_ 11y ago
        > Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you On GitHub? They absolutely do. It's a platform for collaboration, not idle chatter. If you do not wish to support your disagreement, you probably shouldn't be posting anything there to begin with. EDIT: I've also already explained to you why 'agreement' and 'disagreement' are held to different standards. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point.
        moe 11y ago
        > I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point. Because your distinction is wrong. A drive-by -1 is in no way different from a drive-by +1. Both are equally useful. Both indicate how many people agree or disagree. Neither explains why someone agrees or disagrees.
  - tylorr 11y ago
    If you look at product reviews, people are more likely to write a comment if they have an issue with the product than if they don't. I'm not sure how much this applies to github topics but it could possibly provide it's own bias towards negative comments. Also, as others have mentioned, it only takes one person to write a negative comment, then others could +1 that.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  That is not the case for disagreement, where a counter-argument must exist, but has not been voiced yet. Someone shouldn't have to expect to come up with an alternative just to voice the idea that something sucks. This idea leaves you vulnerable to the "something must be done, this is something, therefore we do it" problem by unfairly biasing positive votes rather than negative ones. Yes, I read your rationale. I don't agree with it.
  - mclifton 11y ago
    Prior to reading these arguments I would have agreed. But I suppose I have to admit that I would prefer that someone said "This feature isn't necessary - feature Y is a perfectly good substitute" or even "this feature is inappropriate according to the goals of this project" and upvote those comments, rather than downvoting the original feature/pull request without giving a reason. I'm not nearly as adamantly opposed to a downvote button, but I can understand the argument.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      The problem here is the presupposition that a positive argument has been made. People often make claims without any supporting argument. If only counterclaims were required to have supporting argument, it would be unbalanced in favor of bald assertions. Sometimes people make silly claims or requests or demands. In such cases, one shouldn't be required to write a reasoned counterargument. A simple "nope" should suffice. "This is why we can't have nice things." People assume the status quo is bad or wrong and that change is necessarily progress. It begins to take more effort to keep the good things that have been achieved than it does to break them and replace them with regressions. It requires more time and effort to defend them against the onslaught of unreasoned demands because of irrational bias against the status quo. This is true not only in software but in politics and society. But for a simple example in the software world, just look at the Metro UI: it's awful for a million reasons, a regression even from Windows 95's UI--but to some people, it's change, therefore it must be progress, therefore it must be done.
joeyespo 11y ago
> People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views What about a comment? Once someone elaborates why they disagree, others can trivially +1 it to show support of a specific disagreement. On the other hand, you can disagree with both the original comment and someone's disagreement, prompting an additional "disagreement" reply. Note that -1's don't carry as much information as you'd think. It could mean any one of these: - Someone disagrees with you - Someone doesn't like you - Someone is angry or having a bad day - Someone is retaliating or holding a grudge Without any rationale, there's absolutely no way to tell the difference between a useful disagreement and juvenile aggression.
- WillAbides 11y ago
  If you get a -1 from somebody whose opinion you value, you can always ask what's up.
- dec0dedab0de 11y ago
  +1s could mean -Someone agrees with you -Someone likes you -Someone is happy or having a good day -Someone is repaying a favor or maintaining a friendship.
  - joeyespo 11y ago
    The difference is when you +1, you're publically expressing agreement with what they wrote. If someone you like writes something you don't agree with, you wouldn't +1 them. If you're having a good day, you still wouldn't blindly dish out +1's because if you +1 a controversial comment, it could hurt your reputation. Negation is different because it's entirely ambiguous. You can dish them out freely and retroactively rationalize your intention. -1's are way more susceptible to knee-jerk emotional reactions than +1's. A relevant example. Think of the political candidate you like the most. If someone you really like asks you to +1 a persuasive argument about their competitor, would you? On the other hand, if they asked you to -1 someone, you probably would. Even if you knew very little about them.
    - jahewson 11y ago
qznc 11y ago
Instead of "disagree with A", you should "agree with alternative B".

joepie91_ 11y ago

> People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views. Why is it acceptable to have a +1 button but not a -1 button? Why can people agree without giving any reason for their agreement but they can't disagree without giving any reason for their agreement? Because when you agree, that means the argument has already been presented - specifically, it's the argument that you are agreeing with. That is not the case for disagreement, where a counter-argument must exist, but has not been voiced yet. Agreement and disagreement aren't superficial opposites like you're presenting them to be.

adnzzzzZ 11y ago
>That is not the case for disagreement The reason why Github added these votes in the first place is so that people can give a signal of how welcome or not a certain change is to the project. If you only provide the signal for agreement but remove the signaling for disagreement and make it costly, then you'll get more people voting one way than the other. If it costs more to disagree then you're already rigging the game towards agreement.
- joepie91_ 11y ago
  Sure, but that is already the case - posting a :+1: costs much less effort than writing a counter-argument (and is already widely socially accepted, spammy-ness aside). The addition of an upvote button doesn't change this. That's not to say that I wouldn't like that bias resolved, but it's a bias that exists precisely because of the difference between 'agreement' and 'disagreement' that I described, and I'm not sure it can be solved in a technical manner.
  - adnzzzzZ 11y ago
    How does enhancing the bias solve the issue? By not adding the downvote button this bias is enhanced. By adding the downvote button this bias is diminished. It's not a perfect solution but it's better than doing nothing.
    - joepie91_ 11y ago
      How do you see adding a button enhancing this bias? People already barely leave -1 replies without arguments.
- pygy_ 11y ago
  If there is such a strong counter argument, someone will make it (see XKCD 386) and it will be possible to upvote the dissenting opinion.
- joeyespo 11y ago
  -1 ... If I left the above with no further explanation, it doesn't give you any signal as to why I disagreed with you. One the other hand, if we were having this conversation on GitHub, people who agreed with my counter-point could react with a +1, giving you a much stronger signal about what exactly the disagreement is about. And once someone provides a valuable counter-argument, it's no longer "rigged toward agreement." Compared to an explanation with several +1's, a drive-by -1 adds virtually nothing to the discussion because they carry so little information.
  - adnzzzzZ 11y ago
    Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you as much as people don't have to give you a signal on why they agree with you. I don't get this argument. People may agree with 2 out of 5 things in a list and vote +1 because they don't care about the 3 other things. You still don't get that feedback from a +1, just like you won't get from a -1. There shouldn't be higher standards for disagreement based on reasons because the same doesn't exist for agreement.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - joepie91_ 11y ago
      > Not everyone has to give a signal on why they disagreed with you On GitHub? They absolutely do. It's a platform for collaboration, not idle chatter. If you do not wish to support your disagreement, you probably shouldn't be posting anything there to begin with. EDIT: I've also already explained to you why 'agreement' and 'disagreement' are held to different standards. I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point.
      - moe 11y ago
        > I'm not sure why you keep repeating this point. Because your distinction is wrong. A drive-by -1 is in no way different from a drive-by +1. Both are equally useful. Both indicate how many people agree or disagree. Neither explains why someone agrees or disagrees.
- tylorr 11y ago
  If you look at product reviews, people are more likely to write a comment if they have an issue with the product than if they don't. I'm not sure how much this applies to github topics but it could possibly provide it's own bias towards negative comments. Also, as others have mentioned, it only takes one person to write a negative comment, then others could +1 that.
Karunamon 11y ago
That is not the case for disagreement, where a counter-argument must exist, but has not been voiced yet. Someone shouldn't have to expect to come up with an alternative just to voice the idea that something sucks. This idea leaves you vulnerable to the "something must be done, this is something, therefore we do it" problem by unfairly biasing positive votes rather than negative ones. Yes, I read your rationale. I don't agree with it.
- mclifton 11y ago
  Prior to reading these arguments I would have agreed. But I suppose I have to admit that I would prefer that someone said "This feature isn't necessary - feature Y is a perfectly good substitute" or even "this feature is inappropriate according to the goals of this project" and upvote those comments, rather than downvoting the original feature/pull request without giving a reason. I'm not nearly as adamantly opposed to a downvote button, but I can understand the argument.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    The problem here is the presupposition that a positive argument has been made. People often make claims without any supporting argument. If only counterclaims were required to have supporting argument, it would be unbalanced in favor of bald assertions. Sometimes people make silly claims or requests or demands. In such cases, one shouldn't be required to write a reasoned counterargument. A simple "nope" should suffice. "This is why we can't have nice things." People assume the status quo is bad or wrong and that change is necessarily progress. It begins to take more effort to keep the good things that have been achieved than it does to break them and replace them with regressions. It requires more time and effort to defend them against the onslaught of unreasoned demands because of irrational bias against the status quo. This is true not only in software but in politics and society. But for a simple example in the software world, just look at the Metro UI: it's awful for a million reasons, a regression even from Windows 95's UI--but to some people, it's change, therefore it must be progress, therefore it must be done.

joeyespo 11y ago

> People who don't agree with something should have a way of expressing their views What about a comment? Once someone elaborates why they disagree, others can trivially +1 it to show support of a specific disagreement. On the other hand, you can disagree with both the original comment and someone's disagreement, prompting an additional "disagreement" reply. Note that -1's don't carry as much information as you'd think. It could mean any one of these: - Someone disagrees with you - Someone doesn't like you - Someone is angry or having a bad day - Someone is retaliating or holding a grudge Without any rationale, there's absolutely no way to tell the difference between a useful disagreement and juvenile aggression.

WillAbides 11y ago
If you get a -1 from somebody whose opinion you value, you can always ask what's up.
dec0dedab0de 11y ago
+1s could mean -Someone agrees with you -Someone likes you -Someone is happy or having a good day -Someone is repaying a favor or maintaining a friendship.
- joeyespo 11y ago
  The difference is when you +1, you're publically expressing agreement with what they wrote. If someone you like writes something you don't agree with, you wouldn't +1 them. If you're having a good day, you still wouldn't blindly dish out +1's because if you +1 a controversial comment, it could hurt your reputation. Negation is different because it's entirely ambiguous. You can dish them out freely and retroactively rationalize your intention. -1's are way more susceptible to knee-jerk emotional reactions than +1's. A relevant example. Think of the political candidate you like the most. If someone you really like asks you to +1 a persuasive argument about their competitor, would you? On the other hand, if they asked you to -1 someone, you probably would. Even if you knew very little about them.
  - jahewson 11y ago

qznc 11y ago

Instead of "disagree with A", you should "agree with alternative B".