4 ms·

We have an Overton window here on HN. It's enforced through downvoting. I would very much like to see downvoting eliminated, or at least modified so that a smal

by ccleve 10y ago

We have an Overton window here on HN. It's enforced through downvoting. I would very much like to see downvoting eliminated, or at least modified so that a small number of upvotes can counteract it. There are a number of perfectly reasonable comments in this thread that carry the stain of appearing in light gray. EDIT: It appears that I've been downvoted, and I don't know why. Anyone care to explain?

schoen 10y ago
There's still the old issue of whether downvotes should be used for disagreement or only for mistaken or unconstructive commenting. Paul Graham said several years ago that it made sense to him to use it for disagreement (because people might use upvotes for agreement), but I continue to feel uncomfortable with that and try never to use it that way. I try to upvote things that I disagree with that I thought were well-put or constructive. Maybe an alternative would be to look at Paul Graham's own "hierarchy of disagreement" and try to use downvoting only for things at DH2 and below. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
fjdjcjd 10y ago
Not even that. Some users have a habit of flagkilling every comment they disagree with or that offers criticism to their post. Have you tried arguing with tptacek recently? Flags are essentially being used as "super downvotes." I'm alright with downvotes, but hiding posts that are critical of your arguments from being viewed by others seems extreme.
- DenisM 10y ago
  > Have you tried arguing with tptacek recently? Flags are essentially being used as "super downvotes." huh? can you elaborate?
  - 2109u21930 10y ago
    'tptacek has (by his own admission) been flagging quite ruthlessly on several occasions. This submission, which he apparently disapproves of (see elsewhere in this thread) is also sinking quite fast. Filter bubble as usual.
    - tnones 10y ago
      This happens every time the identitarian left narrative stumbles and gets torn apart in subsequent comments. LambdaConf was the most memorable example. Perfectly reasonable post, intelligent discussion, flagged and memory holed by those who claim their side is rational and fact-driven.
      - Frondo 10y ago
        Not just the left. Everyone everywhere is a jerk online.
    - sctb 10y ago
      It's fine for all users to flag stories they feel are deemed off-topic by the guidelines.
alecco 10y ago
> We have an Overton window here on HN. It's enforced through downvoting. Indeed. > I would very much like to see downvoting eliminated, or at least modified so that a small number of upvotes can counteract it. No way. It was mostly like that not that long ago and the site was terrible. Filled with pseudo-spam and no criticism was possible. The problem is humans don't have good manners. We are full of biases and try to do anything to advance whatever ideas we favor at the moment. Downvoting criticism is one of them.
lacampbell 10y ago
I don't really care about imaginary internet points - but what does irk me is when down-voted content is made hard to read. I don't want my preconceptions of a post to be pre-coloured by what everyone else before me thought of it. I want to make my own judgement.
gunn 10y ago
Here's my idea to help - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12412788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12412788 Rather than each comment having a global score, each user sees comments scored based on their voting history. This means non-conforming opinions no longer get buried for everyone. An upvote should mean "I'd like to see more of this" not "I'd like everyone to see more of this".
- mjevans 10y ago
  I agree with your use of 'downvoting' to remove content personally but less so the correlation to 'upvoting'. Just because there's an up button and a down button close together, and clearly the intent that they are correlated, doesn't mean that the usage in practice is the same. A vote up means that the post is on topic, and relevant of showing to others preferentially in the eyes of the voter. A vote down is often used on topics that the voter simply /disagrees/ with, irrespective of relevance to the topic. Therefore I would propose that 'mixed votes' indicate a contentious, but likely on topic, point of discussion for further discourse and refinement. There should clearly be a threshold (a large number of votes, with a vast majority of them negative) for indicating actually harmful content.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  > his means non-conforming opinions no longer get buried for everyone. Huh. When I look over light-grey and dead comments in the stories I read, I see that most downvotes are not for non-conforming opinions.
- TheBobinator 10y ago
  I'd like to propose the comments on the page be ordered by whether they formed a thread or not (people responded), length (word count, longer posts explain more, shorter posts speak to the experienced), alphabetical order of name of the poster (if you want to see if someone specific you liked posted), or whether or not they contain a URL. However, by default, the page should randomize the display of comments every time it's loaded in order to force people to view some viewpoints occasionally that they might not like. The reason I come here is to have my opinions and views challenged; this refines the metrics by which I judge reality and the viewpoints I consider valid and generally enriches my life. Google has become all about pushing a viewpoint. Go into google right now and start typing in "a", "b", "c"; first thing that comes up is large big-box retail chains. Used to be you could find fringe topics via major search engines, now everything lives in it's walled garden; giving corps the ability to control viewpoints like that is somewhere in-between suicide and genocide. You want people constantly debating and discussing topics and not forcing themselves into an orthodoxy because it forces the habitation of developing a personal scientific method which doubles as a BS detector and inoculation against agents of psychological warfare.

by ccleve 10y ago

schoen 10y ago

There's still the old issue of whether downvotes should be used for disagreement or only for mistaken or unconstructive commenting. Paul Graham said several years ago that it made sense to him to use it for disagreement (because people might use upvotes for agreement), but I continue to feel uncomfortable with that and try never to use it that way. I try to upvote things that I disagree with that I thought were well-put or constructive. Maybe an alternative would be to look at Paul Graham's own "hierarchy of disagreement" and try to use downvoting only for things at DH2 and below. http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

fjdjcjd 10y ago

Not even that. Some users have a habit of flagkilling every comment they disagree with or that offers criticism to their post. Have you tried arguing with tptacek recently? Flags are essentially being used as "super downvotes." I'm alright with downvotes, but hiding posts that are critical of your arguments from being viewed by others seems extreme.

DenisM 10y ago
> Have you tried arguing with tptacek recently? Flags are essentially being used as "super downvotes." huh? can you elaborate?
- 2109u21930 10y ago
  'tptacek has (by his own admission) been flagging quite ruthlessly on several occasions. This submission, which he apparently disapproves of (see elsewhere in this thread) is also sinking quite fast. Filter bubble as usual.
  - tnones 10y ago
    This happens every time the identitarian left narrative stumbles and gets torn apart in subsequent comments. LambdaConf was the most memorable example. Perfectly reasonable post, intelligent discussion, flagged and memory holed by those who claim their side is rational and fact-driven.
    - Frondo 10y ago
      Not just the left. Everyone everywhere is a jerk online.
  - sctb 10y ago
    It's fine for all users to flag stories they feel are deemed off-topic by the guidelines.

alecco 10y ago

> We have an Overton window here on HN. It's enforced through downvoting. Indeed. > I would very much like to see downvoting eliminated, or at least modified so that a small number of upvotes can counteract it. No way. It was mostly like that not that long ago and the site was terrible. Filled with pseudo-spam and no criticism was possible. The problem is humans don't have good manners. We are full of biases and try to do anything to advance whatever ideas we favor at the moment. Downvoting criticism is one of them.

lacampbell 10y ago

I don't really care about imaginary internet points - but what does irk me is when down-voted content is made hard to read. I don't want my preconceptions of a post to be pre-coloured by what everyone else before me thought of it. I want to make my own judgement.

gunn 10y ago

Here's my idea to help - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12412788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12412788 Rather than each comment having a global score, each user sees comments scored based on their voting history. This means non-conforming opinions no longer get buried for everyone. An upvote should mean "I'd like to see more of this" not "I'd like everyone to see more of this".

mjevans 10y ago
I agree with your use of 'downvoting' to remove content personally but less so the correlation to 'upvoting'. Just because there's an up button and a down button close together, and clearly the intent that they are correlated, doesn't mean that the usage in practice is the same. A vote up means that the post is on topic, and relevant of showing to others preferentially in the eyes of the voter. A vote down is often used on topics that the voter simply /disagrees/ with, irrespective of relevance to the topic. Therefore I would propose that 'mixed votes' indicate a contentious, but likely on topic, point of discussion for further discourse and refinement. There should clearly be a threshold (a large number of votes, with a vast majority of them negative) for indicating actually harmful content.
greglindahl 10y ago
> his means non-conforming opinions no longer get buried for everyone. Huh. When I look over light-grey and dead comments in the stories I read, I see that most downvotes are not for non-conforming opinions.
TheBobinator 10y ago
I'd like to propose the comments on the page be ordered by whether they formed a thread or not (people responded), length (word count, longer posts explain more, shorter posts speak to the experienced), alphabetical order of name of the poster (if you want to see if someone specific you liked posted), or whether or not they contain a URL. However, by default, the page should randomize the display of comments every time it's loaded in order to force people to view some viewpoints occasionally that they might not like. The reason I come here is to have my opinions and views challenged; this refines the metrics by which I judge reality and the viewpoints I consider valid and generally enriches my life. Google has become all about pushing a viewpoint. Go into google right now and start typing in "a", "b", "c"; first thing that comes up is large big-box retail chains. Used to be you could find fringe topics via major search engines, now everything lives in it's walled garden; giving corps the ability to control viewpoints like that is somewhere in-between suicide and genocide. You want people constantly debating and discussing topics and not forcing themselves into an orthodoxy because it forces the habitation of developing a personal scientific method which doubles as a BS detector and inoculation against agents of psychological warfare.