4 ms·

> It's validation that a "sacred cow" has been cooked into tasty burgers. Or that you’re being a jerk. The HN guidance on commentary is clearly a large part

> It's validation that a "sacred cow" has been cooked into tasty burgers. Or that you’re being a jerk. The HN guidance on commentary is clearly a large part of why HN hasn’t devolved into Slashdot, and the generally on-point and respectful discussions invite really interesting and knowledgeable people to hang around, from whom we all benefit. I’ll admit that I’ve occasionally scratched my head over downvotes I’ve received. But while there may well be some that apply votes contrary to the guidelines, in most cases - if I honestly review what I’ve written - I’ve phrased my comment in a way that’s not conducive to productive discourse.

briantakita 7y ago
> Or that you’re being a jerk. Sometimes that's the case. However, I've seen ample legitimate discussion following the guidelines & conducive to further discussion, being downvoted because the downvoter obviously disagrees with the post. It tends to occur on "controversial issues" when not enough "weasel words" & "neutrality modifiers" are being used. After a while, one realizes the futility of chasing "karma". That being clear & forceful, according to one's ethics, in expression is far more rewarding.
close04 7y ago
> The HN guidance on commentary Votes receive no guidance and most people don't vote for the quality and accuracy of the comment, they do it based on how that comment fits with their personal opinion. I've seen civilized and purely objective comments being seriously downvoted, especially on polarizing topics. Many go beyond just this and after you have one unpopular comment you realize all of your comments that day just received the same exact number of downvotes at the same approximate time. So I wouldn't really call it 50/50 between "sacred cow turned burger" and "being a jerk" downvotes but it sure is too close to trust the voting system blindly. I will read even the greyed out comments.
- smichel17 7y ago
  I read using the Android app, "Materialistic" (on f-droid), which doesn't display vote counts. I think it's great -- I pay much more attention to the contents of comments and judge them on merit rather than voted. You can do a similar thing on desktop with ublock origin's cosmetic filtering (right click > block element).
- tremon 7y ago
  [ I admit, this is heading offtopic, but still a useful discussion ] most people [vote] based on how that comment fits with their personal opinion Isn't that what the voting system is for then? When I see someone has already written what I was going to say, I upvote them instead of writing a "me too" comment. My other upvotes are reserved for posts that spark my curiosity, or grey comments where I think the downvotes were undeserved. I almost never upvote comments I disagree with, unless (as above) they bring something new to the table. Downvotes I try to reserve for obnoxious or trollish comments only, but I admit there may be occasions where some man's troll is another man's freedom fighter.
  - phs318u 7y ago
    I will typically upvote comments that elaborate, translate (DSL>English), or opine with corroborating evidence. The last I will try and do regardless of direction. I especially will upvote where one person offers a well written comment and another offers a well written rebuttal. I will upvote both as I want to promote what I consider a “healthy” discussion. I will sometimes downvote based on (poor) form irrespective of content. That’s because there’s always a way of getting your point across with being a jerk. Given that one can make a point without being a jerk, the choice to be a jerk is therefore a gratuitous attack in the person, and whether you’ve also attacked the substance becomes almost irrelevant at that point. My 2c.
zhte415 7y ago
> The HN guidance on commentary is clearly a large part of why HN hasn’t devolved into Slashdot Well, there was kuro5hin! I think Slashdot didn't devolve, but perhaps fell off a cliff when it was sold; a strong correlation with Sourceforge. Acquisitions of communities are hard.

briantakita 7y ago

> Or that you’re being a jerk. Sometimes that's the case. However, I've seen ample legitimate discussion following the guidelines & conducive to further discussion, being downvoted because the downvoter obviously disagrees with the post. It tends to occur on "controversial issues" when not enough "weasel words" & "neutrality modifiers" are being used. After a while, one realizes the futility of chasing "karma". That being clear & forceful, according to one's ethics, in expression is far more rewarding.

close04 7y ago

> The HN guidance on commentary Votes receive no guidance and most people don't vote for the quality and accuracy of the comment, they do it based on how that comment fits with their personal opinion. I've seen civilized and purely objective comments being seriously downvoted, especially on polarizing topics. Many go beyond just this and after you have one unpopular comment you realize all of your comments that day just received the same exact number of downvotes at the same approximate time. So I wouldn't really call it 50/50 between "sacred cow turned burger" and "being a jerk" downvotes but it sure is too close to trust the voting system blindly. I will read even the greyed out comments.

smichel17 7y ago
I read using the Android app, "Materialistic" (on f-droid), which doesn't display vote counts. I think it's great -- I pay much more attention to the contents of comments and judge them on merit rather than voted. You can do a similar thing on desktop with ublock origin's cosmetic filtering (right click > block element).
tremon 7y ago
[ I admit, this is heading offtopic, but still a useful discussion ] most people [vote] based on how that comment fits with their personal opinion Isn't that what the voting system is for then? When I see someone has already written what I was going to say, I upvote them instead of writing a "me too" comment. My other upvotes are reserved for posts that spark my curiosity, or grey comments where I think the downvotes were undeserved. I almost never upvote comments I disagree with, unless (as above) they bring something new to the table. Downvotes I try to reserve for obnoxious or trollish comments only, but I admit there may be occasions where some man's troll is another man's freedom fighter.
- phs318u 7y ago
  I will typically upvote comments that elaborate, translate (DSL>English), or opine with corroborating evidence. The last I will try and do regardless of direction. I especially will upvote where one person offers a well written comment and another offers a well written rebuttal. I will upvote both as I want to promote what I consider a “healthy” discussion. I will sometimes downvote based on (poor) form irrespective of content. That’s because there’s always a way of getting your point across with being a jerk. Given that one can make a point without being a jerk, the choice to be a jerk is therefore a gratuitous attack in the person, and whether you’ve also attacked the substance becomes almost irrelevant at that point. My 2c.

zhte415 7y ago

> The HN guidance on commentary is clearly a large part of why HN hasn’t devolved into Slashdot Well, there was kuro5hin! I think Slashdot didn't devolve, but perhaps fell off a cliff when it was sold; a strong correlation with Sourceforge. Acquisitions of communities are hard.