5 ms·

Barring different categories for downvotes, I strongly believe that a downvote should be reserved for cases where you think the comment does not contribute to t

by Udo 10y ago

Barring different categories for downvotes, I strongly believe that a downvote should be reserved for cases where you think the comment does not contribute to the discussion. Disagreement should not be enough. If the issue is amenable to discussion, I'd much rather see someone type out a reply containing actual counterpoints than people simply downvoting (or worse: flagging) the parent. And if you find a well-written comment you disagree with, you might even upvote it and disagree in text form. I realize though that disagreement sometimes needs an outlet that can't be provided if a large number of replies already exist, but in that case you might just upvote the best existing reply that you feel captures your feelings. I would advocate that downvotes be reserved for instances where the post was a net negative to the discussion, and flags should be reserved for egregious violations of conduct that call the originating user accounts itself into question. Based on that, I think a score of -2 (is that the current limit?) and a few hours time limit is sufficient for the purpose of filtering the discussion. It should be ample time to weed out the low quality comments that should be sinking to the bottom. Once that basic weeding is done, upvoting is a much better signal to concentrate on.

allendoerfer 10y ago
I think the problem is Eternal September. Some facts and patterns have been discussed exhaustively and truth has been found. At some point the community has to move on. The backlog is open, society or the web does not gain from duplication deluding every discussion. People can just lurk a bit if they fear downvoting and losing imaginary internet points. But I also like the strictness of the often critiqued stackoverflow moderation.
rahimnathwani 10y ago
I wish I could upvote this 100 times. Especially: "if you find a well-written comment you disagree with, you might even upvote it and disagree in text form." "disagreement sometimes needs an outlet ... you might just upvote the best existing reply that you feel captures your feelings. But AFAIK the HN guidelines (or pg?) say that disagreement is an acceptable reason for downvoting. It's really poor UX to have a single input that indicates wildly different things. dang - is there any chance this rule will change? Or any particular reason why we don't want to change it?
- wfn 10y ago
  Seconding this; especially if you find a well-written comment you disagree with, you might even upvote it and disagree in text form. Making this into one of the guidelines may, I think, be a good idea.
- gkya 10y ago
  Guidelines are clear on what downwotes are: a tool for pushing down and marking irrelevant comments, not a "disagree" button. But the fact is it's hard for someone unskilled in discussion to distinguish disagreeable comment from an irrelevant one. Also, usually it's hard for most people to accept the falsety of their own thought against a counterargument. These skills, that are objective open mindedness and the incentive to accept criticism and counterarguments require a sort of literacy that's different from tech literacy, which's what I guess the HN crowd does indeed have in abundance. Discussion skills and discussion culture are not things that come with birth or tech knowledge though, they are a separate group of skills that you achieve on its own. Being able to take those actions that you quote require a certain maturity of such skills. HN being publicly accessible and popular to a certain extent, it's impossible to expect everyone to have them. And even a handful of this sort of commenters are enough to spoil the harmony of a discussion group. Further, if there are points earnable on internet, people will want to earn them. This sort of incentive pushes commenters to adopt a more populist style that can gain upvotes with punchy lines and populist comments instead of complete and coherent arguments or well-founded criticisms. Ultimately this is an illness of voting in itself, not specific to HN. See Brexit, Trump, etc. for up-to-date examples. edits: grammar.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    Are the guidelines clear on downvotes? I think there's a misconception that they are, especially pertaining to up and down voting. I just reread the guidelines[1] and see little mention of up and down voting. The only mentioning is don't complain about or bait for down votes. In the past pg has said it's okay to use votes for agreement/disagreement[2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 Edits: formatting
funkyy 10y ago
I would actually assume, that most people will downvote comments that are bad or don't fit the conversation. Or least that's what I am doing. Getting privilege of downvoting is not that easy to get and this weeds out a lot of trolls right there. When I see "Reddit style" comments, offensive, emotionally incorrect - I will downvote. If I don't agree on argument I will never downvote and if the poster is actually explaining himself well, will upvote. Same with people that seen their mistake and correct themselves - they always get an upvote to encourage them. When I see someone wrong, but can't be sure or the case is open for discussion I will never downvote and if I see at the bottom comment section such a post, that got downvoted without people actually giving reason why - I will upvote it. Its different to downvote comment like "Lol, tits or GTFO" and downvoting "I think Donald Trump would be better for Silicon Valley because: here insert 20 sentences of actually good ideas and thoughts". I cannot accept personally downvoting based on different way of seeing things. And while some of my comments might be sided - downvoting is not for expressing your agreement or disagreement on a matter as long as it is presented in "HN" quality style. edit: sorry for making this comment as "I am" "I think" "I do", but overall it was intended to describe of what I think downvoting is for in my opinion and opinion of few people on here that I know.
- brudgers 10y ago
  I think saying "I" creates clarity. It is a clear fact that I think downvoting for disagreement makes Hacker News better. I do not believe it is not a clear fact that downvoting for disagreement makes Hacker News better...and that's also a clear fact. Framing the issue this way, someone can offer rationales, reasons and examples why I ought to change my mind. But there is nothing there that I am wrong about.
kuschku 10y ago
> Based on that, I think a score of -2 (is that the current limit?) I’ve got some comments of mine commenting against the Elon Musk circlejerk here that got voted to -4 and -5, so, -2 isn’t the limit.
brudgers 10y ago
I have a different opinion about the use of downvotes to express disagreement. The basis of that opinion is my belief that the use of downvotes to express disagreement often has a more positive net effect on Hacker News than a comment expressing disagreement. Among the characteristics of comments I am inclined to downvote in disagreement is a tone precluding the possibility that other diverging opinions on the matter are reasonable and well founded. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I want an argument. Particularly with someone on the internet who has staked out a position in hopes of capturing one. A comment that is written to evoke argument has to first spark disagreement. My downvote confirms the author has successfully achieved that goal. The decision to forgo argument however is mine and is reasonable.
- js8 10y ago
  If you don't want to have an argument, why do you want to get involved in the discussion, via the downvote, at all? Edit: It's probably not obvious why I ask. But it strikes me very much as "I want to help you, but I don't want to do any real work". In which case, it's probably advisable just to leave him alone.
  - barrkel 10y ago
    Some people want an argument for entertainment purposes. Arguments can become time consuming, and if they take a bad turn, can result in negative feelings. There's plenty of reasons to express disagreement but be disinclined to engage directly and at length.
    - js8 10y ago
      > if they take a bad turn, can result in negative feelings And downvote doesn't? Especially without an explanation? > Arguments can become time consuming If you don't want to do it, why not just ignore the thing entirely and leave to some else to comment?
      - brudgers 10y ago
        One type of argumentative comment I don't like to read on Hacker News is the line by line rebuttal. It cherry picks remarks and opens multiple fronts of attack in order to extend the argument.

by Udo 10y ago

allendoerfer 10y ago

I think the problem is Eternal September. Some facts and patterns have been discussed exhaustively and truth has been found. At some point the community has to move on. The backlog is open, society or the web does not gain from duplication deluding every discussion. People can just lurk a bit if they fear downvoting and losing imaginary internet points. But I also like the strictness of the often critiqued stackoverflow moderation.

rahimnathwani 10y ago

I wish I could upvote this 100 times. Especially: "if you find a well-written comment you disagree with, you might even upvote it and disagree in text form." "disagreement sometimes needs an outlet ... you might just upvote the best existing reply that you feel captures your feelings. But AFAIK the HN guidelines (or pg?) say that disagreement is an acceptable reason for downvoting. It's really poor UX to have a single input that indicates wildly different things. dang - is there any chance this rule will change? Or any particular reason why we don't want to change it?

wfn 10y ago
Seconding this; especially if you find a well-written comment you disagree with, you might even upvote it and disagree in text form. Making this into one of the guidelines may, I think, be a good idea.
gkya 10y ago
Guidelines are clear on what downwotes are: a tool for pushing down and marking irrelevant comments, not a "disagree" button. But the fact is it's hard for someone unskilled in discussion to distinguish disagreeable comment from an irrelevant one. Also, usually it's hard for most people to accept the falsety of their own thought against a counterargument. These skills, that are objective open mindedness and the incentive to accept criticism and counterarguments require a sort of literacy that's different from tech literacy, which's what I guess the HN crowd does indeed have in abundance. Discussion skills and discussion culture are not things that come with birth or tech knowledge though, they are a separate group of skills that you achieve on its own. Being able to take those actions that you quote require a certain maturity of such skills. HN being publicly accessible and popular to a certain extent, it's impossible to expect everyone to have them. And even a handful of this sort of commenters are enough to spoil the harmony of a discussion group. Further, if there are points earnable on internet, people will want to earn them. This sort of incentive pushes commenters to adopt a more populist style that can gain upvotes with punchy lines and populist comments instead of complete and coherent arguments or well-founded criticisms. Ultimately this is an illness of voting in itself, not specific to HN. See Brexit, Trump, etc. for up-to-date examples. edits: grammar.
- jrs235 10y ago
  Are the guidelines clear on downvotes? I think there's a misconception that they are, especially pertaining to up and down voting. I just reread the guidelines[1] and see little mention of up and down voting. The only mentioning is don't complain about or bait for down votes. In the past pg has said it's okay to use votes for agreement/disagreement[2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 Edits: formatting

funkyy 10y ago

I would actually assume, that most people will downvote comments that are bad or don't fit the conversation. Or least that's what I am doing. Getting privilege of downvoting is not that easy to get and this weeds out a lot of trolls right there. When I see "Reddit style" comments, offensive, emotionally incorrect - I will downvote. If I don't agree on argument I will never downvote and if the poster is actually explaining himself well, will upvote. Same with people that seen their mistake and correct themselves - they always get an upvote to encourage them. When I see someone wrong, but can't be sure or the case is open for discussion I will never downvote and if I see at the bottom comment section such a post, that got downvoted without people actually giving reason why - I will upvote it. Its different to downvote comment like "Lol, tits or GTFO" and downvoting "I think Donald Trump would be better for Silicon Valley because: here insert 20 sentences of actually good ideas and thoughts". I cannot accept personally downvoting based on different way of seeing things. And while some of my comments might be sided - downvoting is not for expressing your agreement or disagreement on a matter as long as it is presented in "HN" quality style. edit: sorry for making this comment as "I am" "I think" "I do", but overall it was intended to describe of what I think downvoting is for in my opinion and opinion of few people on here that I know.

brudgers 10y ago
I think saying "I" creates clarity. It is a clear fact that I think downvoting for disagreement makes Hacker News better. I do not believe it is not a clear fact that downvoting for disagreement makes Hacker News better...and that's also a clear fact. Framing the issue this way, someone can offer rationales, reasons and examples why I ought to change my mind. But there is nothing there that I am wrong about.

kuschku 10y ago

> Based on that, I think a score of -2 (is that the current limit?) I’ve got some comments of mine commenting against the Elon Musk circlejerk here that got voted to -4 and -5, so, -2 isn’t the limit.

brudgers 10y ago

I have a different opinion about the use of downvotes to express disagreement. The basis of that opinion is my belief that the use of downvotes to express disagreement often has a more positive net effect on Hacker News than a comment expressing disagreement. Among the characteristics of comments I am inclined to downvote in disagreement is a tone precluding the possibility that other diverging opinions on the matter are reasonable and well founded. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I want an argument. Particularly with someone on the internet who has staked out a position in hopes of capturing one. A comment that is written to evoke argument has to first spark disagreement. My downvote confirms the author has successfully achieved that goal. The decision to forgo argument however is mine and is reasonable.

js8 10y ago
If you don't want to have an argument, why do you want to get involved in the discussion, via the downvote, at all? Edit: It's probably not obvious why I ask. But it strikes me very much as "I want to help you, but I don't want to do any real work". In which case, it's probably advisable just to leave him alone.
- barrkel 10y ago
  Some people want an argument for entertainment purposes. Arguments can become time consuming, and if they take a bad turn, can result in negative feelings. There's plenty of reasons to express disagreement but be disinclined to engage directly and at length.
  - js8 10y ago
    > if they take a bad turn, can result in negative feelings And downvote doesn't? Especially without an explanation? > Arguments can become time consuming If you don't want to do it, why not just ignore the thing entirely and leave to some else to comment?
    - brudgers 10y ago
      One type of argumentative comment I don't like to read on Hacker News is the line by line rebuttal. It cherry picks remarks and opens multiple fronts of attack in order to extend the argument.