3 ms·

I agree that dimming should be a function of constructiveness rather than agreement. If flag is to be used for that purpose, there's currently no way to express

by grzm 10y ago

I agree that dimming should be a function of constructiveness rather than agreement. If flag is to be used for that purpose, there's currently no way to express "I think this is a constructive comment", no way to balance "I think this is not a constructive comment". Having such a button is effectively the same as having "constructive/unproductive" buttons: the flag link would be subsumed. As for karma, I think it serves two purposes: it acts as a gating function to ensure members have contributed usefully before allowing them to behave in a potentially unproductive manner (e.g., creating throwaway accounts to down-vote or flag). It also encourages continued constructive contributions. Yes, it's artificial, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't serve that purpose. I don't think karma is perfect, but I think it is, on balance, a constructive feature on HN. If there are other methods of serving those two purposes more effectively and as simply as karma does (and I admit to ignorance here), I think they'd be worth exploring. I think there needs to be some pressure over the lifetime of an account to encourage constructive comments, non only on a per-comment basis.

lisper 10y ago
"Agree" generally implies "constructive" so these are not orthogonal. You really need three options: agree, disagree but constructive, and non-constructive. Only the last one should count towards suppression. As for karma, you make a good point. Have an upvote :-)
- grzm 10y ago
  Back at ya! Very good point regarding {agree|disagree but constructive|non-constructive}. Which really just leads us back to up/down + flag, doesn't it? Then both up-voting and down-voting would count towards "un-dimming" while flagging would count towards dimming, I think. Thanks for working through this with me...er, bringing me around to your opinion :)
  - lisper 10y ago
    Isn't it amazing what can happen when people discuss something rationally? :-)
    - grzm 10y ago
      Indeed! Two additional/final thoughts: - It really should be a ternary selector, not up/down + flag. You should only be able to select one of the three. - Having both up and down contribute to undimming would actively discourage using disagree as "punishment". It would very likely change how "flag" is used, though the proper use of "flag" is unclear to me right now, as from what I can tell its effect is not visible until the comment is dead. It would clarify the effect between "down" and "flag".

by grzm 10y ago

lisper 10y ago

"Agree" generally implies "constructive" so these are not orthogonal. You really need three options: agree, disagree but constructive, and non-constructive. Only the last one should count towards suppression. As for karma, you make a good point. Have an upvote :-)

grzm 10y ago
Back at ya! Very good point regarding {agree|disagree but constructive|non-constructive}. Which really just leads us back to up/down + flag, doesn't it? Then both up-voting and down-voting would count towards "un-dimming" while flagging would count towards dimming, I think. Thanks for working through this with me...er, bringing me around to your opinion :)
- lisper 10y ago
  Isn't it amazing what can happen when people discuss something rationally? :-)
  - grzm 10y ago
    Indeed! Two additional/final thoughts: - It really should be a ternary selector, not up/down + flag. You should only be able to select one of the three. - Having both up and down contribute to undimming would actively discourage using disagree as "punishment". It would very likely change how "flag" is used, though the proper use of "flag" is unclear to me right now, as from what I can tell its effect is not visible until the comment is dead. It would clarify the effect between "down" and "flag".