4 ms·

I see your point about the reason for lowering the prominence of "bad" comments but frankly I think misinformed comments deserve more detailed corrections than

I see your point about the reason for lowering the prominence of "bad" comments but frankly I think misinformed comments deserve more detailed corrections than just down voting. It means people actually learn something rather than misinformation getting if ores and thus continue to be spread. In fact some of the best comments on here have been people writing detailed rebuttals Also I think from your last paragraph you do agree that moderation often gets abused even if you don't agree with the individual points I raised?

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Also I think from your last paragraph you do agree that moderation often gets abused even if you don't agree with the individual points I raised? I think it works well in aggregate, even though there are some individual bad votes. I think that the system is designed in a way which anticipates imperfection in individual acts but is designed to get good results on-balance, and I think obsessing about the individual bad votes is unproductive in most cases.
- laumars 9y ago
  The problem is that it's no longer individual bad votes. I would estimate that at least 1 in 5 of my comments are voted down (albeit just to zero) with no obvious reason why. While the rest of my comments are typically voted up fairly substantially. I don't vary the quality of my posts and try not to make a habit of commenting on topics I'm ill informed in. So either I'm being singled out by an individual with a grudge (which I doubt but I think HN is smart enough to detect those kind of voting patterns anyway?) or the moderation system on here is broken. Either way I can't predict which posts will get voted on in which way and the individual bad votes have now become anything but sparse.