24 ms·

Frankly, I couldn't agree with this more. I've seen intelligent and insightful HN posts down voted simply because they went against the status-quo. If this i

Frankly, I couldn't agree with this more. I've seen intelligent and insightful HN posts down voted simply because they went against the status-quo. If this is allowed to go on, people will be afraid of making controversial (but intelligent) posts, and this place will become another reddit.

robocat 5y ago
> down voted simply because they went against the status-quo. Every tool will be abused sometimes. I think the voting system mostly works extremely well - the system needs to be viewed as a whole with all the compromises that includes, rather than drill down on one particular failure. Sometimes people use voting for bad reasons — I know I have (though I am quite conscientious to try and learn to vote more carefully).
joseluisq 5y ago
Agree. And yes, privilege just uncontroversial standpoints or promote indirect pressure over the members will result in community fragmentation. Therefore HN could turn into "one of many" monotone sites to just pass around.
II2II 5y ago
I suspect that events outside of HN would have more of a chilling effect than the environment of HN itself. I know there are times when I felt like presenting a contrary view on a story but did not. I suspect that a fair number of HN members may even accept those points of view. Yet I have also seen enough of those "conversations" to know that they rapidly go downhill.
ROARosen 5y ago
> I've seen intelligent and insightful HN posts down voted simply because they went against the status-quo. It is not possible to download posts on HackerNews, no matter how many karma you have. Did you mean comments? Because I think that actually one of the strongests points of HN that all posts will get equal footing. (they can be flagged though)
ascar 5y ago
> I've seen intelligent and insightful HN posts down voted simply because they went against the status-quo The best thing to do here is for the community to step in and actively up-vote unfairly downvoted comments.
- FooHentai 5y ago
  I try and do that but often the comment is full dead and can’t be upvoted.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  Isn’t there supposed to be a vouch system? I’ve seen comments that were flagged to death that shouldn’t have been (and a lot more vice versa) but I never seem to see the vouch link whether I have showdead on or not.
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    Not sure if it matches your problem, but FWIW, vouch only seems to show up for comments that already dead (not just flagged and downvoted).
  - bscphil 5y ago
    I see the vouch link, but only when I click on the permalink to the comment.
- mbrodersen 5y ago
  Agree. I do this all the time.
PragmaticPulp 5y ago
I've noticed that when I comment against the status quo, my comments quickly dip to -2 or lower from rapid fire downvotes, then slowly tick upward into positive territory over time as the more patient readers come through. It would be interesting to see if time-weighting the votes somehow could improve the signal. Maybe give less weight to someone who rapid-fire downvotes comments faster than they could possibly read them?
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > It would be interesting to see if time-weighting the votes somehow could improve the signal. Perversely, downvotes aren't available on comments older than 24 hours, but upvotes are, so comments that attract a mixture of up- and down-votes get a strong upward bias on votes they attract after a day (since the upvotes happen and the downvotes don't). Not sure how relevant that effect is to more short-term issues, though.
  - type0 5y ago
    It does make the downvotes irrelevant in a way, it only signals strong disagreement which I think it's good to know. But it's not good to interpret the downvotes as correction method for yourself because it only leads to more echochamber.
    - a1369209993 5y ago
      > But it's not good to interpret the downvotes as correction method for yourself because it only leads to more echochamber. Oh certainly, it's just that this seems eqally applicable to upvotes, hence why the asymmetry seems perverse.
  - angry_octet 5y ago
    Except that once enough negative votes have been received it becomes impossible to upvote. It's like sumo -- pushed too far and it goes out. However, the number is much too small, 3 or 4 downvotes. Flagging operates similarly; as there is no reason attached to the flag it is simply 'dislike'. Slashdot's tags were much more nuanced.
karaterobot 5y ago
Agreed, though personally I think that the complement is also true, and maybe more insidious: A lot of comments get upvoted because they state an uncontroversial, obvious position that everybody agrees with already. This is insidious because it encourages people to be the first to say the least interesting thing in order to get rewarded with comment karma. Those comments bubble up to the top of the thread, where they're held aloft by more and more people who see their existing opinions restated. Ultimately the reward structure encourages discussions where people are indulged, in the same way the punishment structure discourages people being challenged. I'd say this effect is more pronounced on Reddit than HN, but you can see it here too. I'm not looking for "edgy" comments, I'm just saying that it's more useful in the long run to upvote comments that provide new information or perspectives, or at least state a common sense position in a different, compelling way.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  Some of my stupidest posts get upvoted through the roof. Posts which I put in a lot of work on? Mixed bag. Partly this is a first-poster thing. If you post early, then you'll either get a lot of up or down votes. Take time to post, and well, might get nothing.

robocat 5y ago

> down voted simply because they went against the status-quo. Every tool will be abused sometimes. I think the voting system mostly works extremely well - the system needs to be viewed as a whole with all the compromises that includes, rather than drill down on one particular failure. Sometimes people use voting for bad reasons — I know I have (though I am quite conscientious to try and learn to vote more carefully).

joseluisq 5y ago

Agree. And yes, privilege just uncontroversial standpoints or promote indirect pressure over the members will result in community fragmentation. Therefore HN could turn into "one of many" monotone sites to just pass around.

II2II 5y ago

I suspect that events outside of HN would have more of a chilling effect than the environment of HN itself. I know there are times when I felt like presenting a contrary view on a story but did not. I suspect that a fair number of HN members may even accept those points of view. Yet I have also seen enough of those "conversations" to know that they rapidly go downhill.

ROARosen 5y ago

> I've seen intelligent and insightful HN posts down voted simply because they went against the status-quo. It is not possible to download posts on HackerNews, no matter how many karma you have. Did you mean comments? Because I think that actually one of the strongests points of HN that all posts will get equal footing. (they can be flagged though)

ascar 5y ago

> I've seen intelligent and insightful HN posts down voted simply because they went against the status-quo The best thing to do here is for the community to step in and actively up-vote unfairly downvoted comments.

FooHentai 5y ago
I try and do that but often the comment is full dead and can’t be upvoted.
the_only_law 5y ago
Isn’t there supposed to be a vouch system? I’ve seen comments that were flagged to death that shouldn’t have been (and a lot more vice versa) but I never seem to see the vouch link whether I have showdead on or not.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  Not sure if it matches your problem, but FWIW, vouch only seems to show up for comments that already dead (not just flagged and downvoted).
- bscphil 5y ago
  I see the vouch link, but only when I click on the permalink to the comment.
mbrodersen 5y ago
Agree. I do this all the time.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

I've noticed that when I comment against the status quo, my comments quickly dip to -2 or lower from rapid fire downvotes, then slowly tick upward into positive territory over time as the more patient readers come through. It would be interesting to see if time-weighting the votes somehow could improve the signal. Maybe give less weight to someone who rapid-fire downvotes comments faster than they could possibly read them?

a1369209993 5y ago
> It would be interesting to see if time-weighting the votes somehow could improve the signal. Perversely, downvotes aren't available on comments older than 24 hours, but upvotes are, so comments that attract a mixture of up- and down-votes get a strong upward bias on votes they attract after a day (since the upvotes happen and the downvotes don't). Not sure how relevant that effect is to more short-term issues, though.
- type0 5y ago
  It does make the downvotes irrelevant in a way, it only signals strong disagreement which I think it's good to know. But it's not good to interpret the downvotes as correction method for yourself because it only leads to more echochamber.
  - a1369209993 5y ago
    > But it's not good to interpret the downvotes as correction method for yourself because it only leads to more echochamber. Oh certainly, it's just that this seems eqally applicable to upvotes, hence why the asymmetry seems perverse.
- angry_octet 5y ago
  Except that once enough negative votes have been received it becomes impossible to upvote. It's like sumo -- pushed too far and it goes out. However, the number is much too small, 3 or 4 downvotes. Flagging operates similarly; as there is no reason attached to the flag it is simply 'dislike'. Slashdot's tags were much more nuanced.

karaterobot 5y ago

Agreed, though personally I think that the complement is also true, and maybe more insidious: A lot of comments get upvoted because they state an uncontroversial, obvious position that everybody agrees with already. This is insidious because it encourages people to be the first to say the least interesting thing in order to get rewarded with comment karma. Those comments bubble up to the top of the thread, where they're held aloft by more and more people who see their existing opinions restated. Ultimately the reward structure encourages discussions where people are indulged, in the same way the punishment structure discourages people being challenged. I'd say this effect is more pronounced on Reddit than HN, but you can see it here too. I'm not looking for "edgy" comments, I'm just saying that it's more useful in the long run to upvote comments that provide new information or perspectives, or at least state a common sense position in a different, compelling way.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Some of my stupidest posts get upvoted through the roof. Posts which I put in a lot of work on? Mixed bag. Partly this is a first-poster thing. If you post early, then you'll either get a lot of up or down votes. Take time to post, and well, might get nothing.