4 ms·

Without a doubt, the way down voting works. a) the voter isn't required to identify their reason for down voting b) it's not just allowed but encouraged to do

Without a doubt, the way down voting works. a) the voter isn't required to identify their reason for down voting b) it's not just allowed but encouraged to downvote things that you simply disagree with Those two things wouldn't mean much if it was just a number. But it isn't. The site actively hides comments as they get down-voted, and people down vote things they simply disagree with. In case you hadn't realised, that's basically a recipe for an echo chamber. I've lost track of how many times I've written/seen others comments that are either factually true, or at least informative while subjective, down voted into oblivion because they don't follow the standing ideals of a large percentage of those who vote.

klohto 8y ago
Pretty much what has reddit become (or has always been)
billconan 8y ago
I also think the down voting system is very toxic. It's not for low quality anymore. It's mainly used for bullying.
- 6UMwP9Reh 8y ago
  I agree, this is the sole reason I've been rotating accounts.
ifdefdebug 8y ago
I disagree. I can't find any encouragement for downvoting things you simply disagree with (I just reread the guidelines to make sure). It's also not my perception this is happening: I do read downvoted comments (or parts of those), and almost always there is a good reason other than disagreement. I frequently see grayed articles coming up again after a while due to something you might call "corrective upvotes" when the only reason for a downvote seems to be a different opinion. > I've lost track of how many times I've written/seen others comments ... Interesting to see how far two subjective perceptions of the same thing - yours and mine in this case - can be away from each other ...
- stephenr 8y ago
  > I can't find any encouragement for downvoting things you simply disagree with Paul Graham declared it "OK" 10 years ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171) and despite realising that it caused problems 2 years later, the problem's never really been fixed. > Interesting to see how far two subjective perceptions of the same thing I think this is directly related to the problem. Bob posts a comment that is not offensive, but 'goes against the grain' for a large part of HN readers, so his comment is downvoted quickly to the point that it doesn't even appear for most people (either literally because they have `showdead` turned off or figuratively because it's greyed out to be almost unreadable, and at the bottom of sometimes long comment threads). John reads the comment thread and never sees Bob's comment. John doesn't see the problem because the problem is things not being seen.
- kazinator 8y ago
  "Disagree" could mean "hold a different ethical, esthetic or political view" or "find something to have serious factual issues".
stephenr 8y ago
I will add to this a little. Because I disagree with how HN's downvotes work, I have `showdead` enabled, so I can see the comments/articles that have been downvoted simply because of disagreement. But that also shows all the articles that are clearly just spam - so I can have the spam removed, or I can see the things the HN hive mind disagrees with, but not both.
christophilus 8y ago
Do you have a sample link to such a downvoted comment? I generally find that downvotes make sense. When they don’t, the comment often bounces back via upvotes.
masonic 8y ago
it's not just allowed but encouraged to downvote things that you simply disagree with One thing I hate most is people who don't actually read the guidelines in the first place.
- stephenr 8y ago
  Did I say 'encouraged in the guidelines'? The founder said he thinks it's OK, so people do it.
  - edanm 8y ago
    To be fair, I don't think most people know about a random comment pg made 10 years ago. You could certainly make the case that it changed the ethos of the place, but I know that I personally disagree with him, and try to make sure never to downvote something I simply disagree with, but thought was well argued.
    - stephenr 8y ago
      Whenever someone has brought up the topic, someone has piped up with "but pg said", linking to that post (or alluding to it) and conveniently never mentioning that even he realised it was a mistake a couple of years later
    - stephenr 8y ago
      And here we go, a moderator specifically telling someone 'down voting for disagreement is OK', and linking to a series of posts by pg staging the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18199276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18199276
      - edanm 8y ago
        OK, fair enough. Not sure how I got the opposite impression then.

klohto 8y ago

Pretty much what has reddit become (or has always been)

billconan 8y ago

I also think the down voting system is very toxic. It's not for low quality anymore. It's mainly used for bullying.

6UMwP9Reh 8y ago
I agree, this is the sole reason I've been rotating accounts.

ifdefdebug 8y ago

I disagree. I can't find any encouragement for downvoting things you simply disagree with (I just reread the guidelines to make sure). It's also not my perception this is happening: I do read downvoted comments (or parts of those), and almost always there is a good reason other than disagreement. I frequently see grayed articles coming up again after a while due to something you might call "corrective upvotes" when the only reason for a downvote seems to be a different opinion. > I've lost track of how many times I've written/seen others comments ... Interesting to see how far two subjective perceptions of the same thing - yours and mine in this case - can be away from each other ...

stephenr 8y ago
> I can't find any encouragement for downvoting things you simply disagree with Paul Graham declared it "OK" 10 years ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171) and despite realising that it caused problems 2 years later, the problem's never really been fixed. > Interesting to see how far two subjective perceptions of the same thing I think this is directly related to the problem. Bob posts a comment that is not offensive, but 'goes against the grain' for a large part of HN readers, so his comment is downvoted quickly to the point that it doesn't even appear for most people (either literally because they have `showdead` turned off or figuratively because it's greyed out to be almost unreadable, and at the bottom of sometimes long comment threads). John reads the comment thread and never sees Bob's comment. John doesn't see the problem because the problem is things not being seen.
kazinator 8y ago
"Disagree" could mean "hold a different ethical, esthetic or political view" or "find something to have serious factual issues".

stephenr 8y ago

I will add to this a little. Because I disagree with how HN's downvotes work, I have `showdead` enabled, so I can see the comments/articles that have been downvoted simply because of disagreement. But that also shows all the articles that are clearly just spam - so I can have the spam removed, or I can see the things the HN hive mind disagrees with, but not both.

christophilus 8y ago

Do you have a sample link to such a downvoted comment? I generally find that downvotes make sense. When they don’t, the comment often bounces back via upvotes.

masonic 8y ago

it's not just allowed but encouraged to downvote things that you simply disagree with One thing I hate most is people who don't actually read the guidelines in the first place.

stephenr 8y ago
Did I say 'encouraged in the guidelines'? The founder said he thinks it's OK, so people do it.
- edanm 8y ago
  To be fair, I don't think most people know about a random comment pg made 10 years ago. You could certainly make the case that it changed the ethos of the place, but I know that I personally disagree with him, and try to make sure never to downvote something I simply disagree with, but thought was well argued.
  - stephenr 8y ago
    Whenever someone has brought up the topic, someone has piped up with "but pg said", linking to that post (or alluding to it) and conveniently never mentioning that even he realised it was a mistake a couple of years later
  - stephenr 8y ago
    And here we go, a moderator specifically telling someone 'down voting for disagreement is OK', and linking to a series of posts by pg staging the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18199276 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18199276
    - edanm 8y ago
      OK, fair enough. Not sure how I got the opposite impression then.