3 ms·
The down votes may be because there has been some discussion of the idea, with pg coming down against it. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=507970 http://new
by jpadvo 16y ago
The down votes may be because there has been some discussion of the idea, with pg coming down against it.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=507970 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=507970
> "The reason HN doesn't need downvotes is that HN, unlike Reddit, kills lame articles. On Reddit, users need downvotes as a way of saying an article is lame. Downvoting is the only way you can get a (nonspam) submission off the frontpage. But on HN you can flag it and if it's bad the editors will kill it.
We can thus safely assume a nonlame set of articles, and we also (so far at least) assume nonlame voters. And if you only have nonlame voters voting on nonlame articles, upvotes should be enough to pick the winners."
That was written almost two years ago, though. Does anybody know if there has been a more recent discussion?
- olalonde 16y agoThanks for the clarification. I'm somewhat surprised though that people use the down vote when they disagree with something quite subjective. I usually down vote comments when they are factually wrong or out of place.