3 ms·

Personally, I'd like other people to see when I upvote them (especially when I am arguing with someone... it makes me look like a good sport, and it's an easy w

by lsc 16y ago

Personally, I'd like other people to see when I upvote them (especially when I am arguing with someone... it makes me look like a good sport, and it's an easy way to say "I think you have an interesting point, even if I disagree with you.") As for seeing people who downvote me? really, who has the time to worry about that sort of thing? I mean, I can understand why both up and downvotes are kept anonymous, but I see a much stronger argument for making upvotes visible than downvotes. Really, I find it unusual that people are willing to admit that they care so much about downvotes. I mean, yeah, I can understand the emotional "ouch" that comes from someone downvoting you, I mean, even I feel it sometimes. But on a logical level, getting upset about a downvote on a comment... a downvote that has no effect on your other comments or submissions, as far as I can tell, just seems childish. I mean, it's like being insulted in a childish way in public, in a situation where physical violence is not a possibility. So maybe it bothers you. but it just seems childish and weak (well, to me...) to let the other person see that you are upset. I mean, they are being childish, right? the adult thing to do is to ignore it or laugh it off. (and then, there's always the possibility that I'm being down voted 'cause I really am being an idiot... I do that sometimes. But most down votes, I think, are a childish attempt to enforce groupthink, and therefore best ignored.)

brudgers 16y ago
> * I can understand why both up and downvotes are kept anonymous, but I see a much stronger argument for making upvotes visible than downvotes.* I think the argument carries the same weight. Anonymity reduces quid pro quo and encourages voting based on the merits of the post.
- lsc 16y ago
  I would argue that quid pro quo in the positive direction is less bad than the same in a negative direction. Especially on a system like HN where votes mostly have emotional value (rather than "your comments never get seen if you have a low carma" like slashdot) I think unreasonable up voting is less bad than unreasonable down voting... unreasonable down voting tends to degrade into unproductive name calling, etc... Note, also, that I do understand the argument for keeping both anonymous, and I'm not saying the current policy should be changed. I'm just saying that if we were to change the current policy, I see some limited upside to making upvotes non anonymous (even though I also see the downsides you point out.) while I see no upside at all to making downvotes non anonymous.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    > I would argue that quid pro quo in the positive direction is less bad than the same in a negative direction Less bad is still bad. That's not an upside.
    - lsc 16y ago
      >That's not an upside. right. The upside, from my first post in the thread: "Personally, I'd like other people to see when I upvote them (especially when I am arguing with someone... it makes me look like a good sport, and it's an easy way to say "I think you have an interesting point, even if I disagree with you.")" Now, maybe that's not enough of an upside to counter the badness of reciprocal voting, but it is still an upside.
      - brudgers 16y ago
        The rationale behind your 'upside' is that it potentially improves the voter's social status. If you perceive that the intent of upvotes and downvotes is something other than improving the quality of posts (for example similar to Facebook's "Like"), and if you are able to discount reciprocity then I can see where your coming from.
        lsc 16y ago
        >The rationale behind your 'upside' is that it potentially improves the voter's social status. That's my primary reason, yes. However, I also believe that if people can see you upvote their posts even while you post a dissenting comment, you will see better conversations for the reasons I outlined in my original post; you are showing you respect the other person and his point, even though you may disagree.
        brudgers 16y ago
        By ignoring reciprocity in your original post, changing human behavior was left as an exercise for the reader.

by lsc 16y ago

brudgers 16y ago

> * I can understand why both up and downvotes are kept anonymous, but I see a much stronger argument for making upvotes visible than downvotes.* I think the argument carries the same weight. Anonymity reduces quid pro quo and encourages voting based on the merits of the post.

lsc 16y ago
I would argue that quid pro quo in the positive direction is less bad than the same in a negative direction. Especially on a system like HN where votes mostly have emotional value (rather than "your comments never get seen if you have a low carma" like slashdot) I think unreasonable up voting is less bad than unreasonable down voting... unreasonable down voting tends to degrade into unproductive name calling, etc... Note, also, that I do understand the argument for keeping both anonymous, and I'm not saying the current policy should be changed. I'm just saying that if we were to change the current policy, I see some limited upside to making upvotes non anonymous (even though I also see the downsides you point out.) while I see no upside at all to making downvotes non anonymous.
- brudgers 16y ago
  > I would argue that quid pro quo in the positive direction is less bad than the same in a negative direction Less bad is still bad. That's not an upside.
  - lsc 16y ago
    >That's not an upside. right. The upside, from my first post in the thread: "Personally, I'd like other people to see when I upvote them (especially when I am arguing with someone... it makes me look like a good sport, and it's an easy way to say "I think you have an interesting point, even if I disagree with you.")" Now, maybe that's not enough of an upside to counter the badness of reciprocal voting, but it is still an upside.
    - brudgers 16y ago
      The rationale behind your 'upside' is that it potentially improves the voter's social status. If you perceive that the intent of upvotes and downvotes is something other than improving the quality of posts (for example similar to Facebook's "Like"), and if you are able to discount reciprocity then I can see where your coming from.
      - lsc 16y ago
        >The rationale behind your 'upside' is that it potentially improves the voter's social status. That's my primary reason, yes. However, I also believe that if people can see you upvote their posts even while you post a dissenting comment, you will see better conversations for the reasons I outlined in my original post; you are showing you respect the other person and his point, even though you may disagree.
        brudgers 16y ago
        By ignoring reciprocity in your original post, changing human behavior was left as an exercise for the reader.