3 ms·

> [edit] here come the downvotes, for those that do, note that downvotes, at least on HN, are not meant to express disagreement, they are meant for content that

> [edit] here come the downvotes, for those that do, note that downvotes, at least on HN, are not meant to express disagreement, they are meant for content that is objectionable for other reasons. This is factually wrong. Search for posts by dang frequently explaining traditions and norms in this forum, including the downvote very much being a standard way to express disagreement (although it is better to voice your disagreement in a comment if you think the conversation would be interesting).

lambdaba 5y ago
I didn't know that, frankly I remember reading, many years ago, people saying that downvotes are not meant to express disagreement. Maybe that changed, I personally don't agree with this and only consider downvoting if someone is not being civil, is not interested in discussion, or really voicing something obviously false. I was careful with my comment, I'm not selling anything, I was just interested in maybe nudging some people towards this information. [edit] seems I'm not the only one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19406299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19406299
- OJFord 5y ago
  It's often said, but as pointed out not the case, and ~never has been for as long as there was anything resembling policy - pg commented on it in early days. Fwiw, I'm not really a fan of it (and don't do it) either. But it's a lot harder to upvote not-objectionable things (so many!) and not upvote things purely because you agree (tempting!) - so I suppose it makes sense. I've thought before about making a 'proof of concept' type commenting system where its designed around not/objectionable; the default as you scroll past things would be to up-vote them (automatically), only down-voting on intervention when 'this does not contribute to the discussion'. Meh, might be interesting, but I'm not interested enough that I've gotten around to it :).

lambdaba 5y ago

I didn't know that, frankly I remember reading, many years ago, people saying that downvotes are not meant to express disagreement. Maybe that changed, I personally don't agree with this and only consider downvoting if someone is not being civil, is not interested in discussion, or really voicing something obviously false. I was careful with my comment, I'm not selling anything, I was just interested in maybe nudging some people towards this information. [edit] seems I'm not the only one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19406299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19406299

OJFord 5y ago
It's often said, but as pointed out not the case, and ~never has been for as long as there was anything resembling policy - pg commented on it in early days. Fwiw, I'm not really a fan of it (and don't do it) either. But it's a lot harder to upvote not-objectionable things (so many!) and not upvote things purely because you agree (tempting!) - so I suppose it makes sense. I've thought before about making a 'proof of concept' type commenting system where its designed around not/objectionable; the default as you scroll past things would be to up-vote them (automatically), only down-voting on intervention when 'this does not contribute to the discussion'. Meh, might be interesting, but I'm not interested enough that I've gotten around to it :).