3 ms·

The up/down voting system is indeed crude -- but it's both simple and relatively well understood (and popular). Also, what you characterize as "drive by voting

by dshah 15y ago

The up/down voting system is indeed crude -- but it's both simple and relatively well understood (and popular). Also, what you characterize as "drive by voting", I think of as being "lightweight feedback". Sure, we could make things a wee bit harder so a (much) smaller fraction of people would vote with with more deliberation, but I'm not sure that actually improves things.

waqf 15y ago
It's not well understood, as evidenced by the continuing arguments about how upvoting "should" mean informative but "does" mean agree.
- pestaa 15y ago
  Agr... whatever. Seriously though, this is a problem I think a lot about. One solution that keeps popping up in my head is implemented in an OS forum somewhere (don't recall specifics), so that each comment can be marked as informative/funny/shocking/etc instead of mere upvotes. Downvotes should go along similar lines so downmodded people don't have to beg for reasons. If "it makes boring reading" [1], don't make people write it! [1]: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
vacri 15y ago
Requesting a reason for a mod via an associated dropdown is not hard for anyone to understand - and I would expect users of "Hacker News" to be able to figure it out even if it were slightly difficult. The "lightweight feedback" is "throwaway feedback", because you really only see how unpopular a comment is (is it dead yet? oop! there it goes!). Only the owner knows how popular it is, and even then, doesn't know if it's just a bunch of 'yeah, me too!' or 'that was informative or insightful!' The most egregious example of 'why is this modded so' is this comment, so much so that I've stuck it in my profile: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3087822 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3087822 The thread was about RMS and what an eccentric he is, and about his comments subsequent to Steve Jobs' death. The comment is defending RMS using an oft-quoted verse of Jobs', where he defends mavericks making their own rules and violating the status quo. The comment makes a very insightful link, and is not offensive or malicious. Yet it's downmodded to dead status, something that other comments in the same thread didn't have happen despite being much more fractious. Why was it downmodded? Who can say? It's probably fanboys, nothing else makes sense from a mature point of view. Which reminds me of another issue with the mod system: it's totally anonymous. There is no accountability. You can diminish someone else's statement without giving a reason why nor standing behind it with your own name/pseudonym. Again, the forum I come from gives you the option to see who modded a comment whichever way - which while there is the occasional problem, is overall a significant net gain for an online community that strives to keep things mature.
- eddmc 15y ago
  I like your feature request of showing my (up/down) voting history within my HN profile.

by dshah 15y ago

waqf 15y ago

It's not well understood, as evidenced by the continuing arguments about how upvoting "should" mean informative but "does" mean agree.

pestaa 15y ago
Agr... whatever. Seriously though, this is a problem I think a lot about. One solution that keeps popping up in my head is implemented in an OS forum somewhere (don't recall specifics), so that each comment can be marked as informative/funny/shocking/etc instead of mere upvotes. Downvotes should go along similar lines so downmodded people don't have to beg for reasons. If "it makes boring reading" [1], don't make people write it! [1]: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

vacri 15y ago

Requesting a reason for a mod via an associated dropdown is not hard for anyone to understand - and I would expect users of "Hacker News" to be able to figure it out even if it were slightly difficult. The "lightweight feedback" is "throwaway feedback", because you really only see how unpopular a comment is (is it dead yet? oop! there it goes!). Only the owner knows how popular it is, and even then, doesn't know if it's just a bunch of 'yeah, me too!' or 'that was informative or insightful!' The most egregious example of 'why is this modded so' is this comment, so much so that I've stuck it in my profile: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3087822 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3087822 The thread was about RMS and what an eccentric he is, and about his comments subsequent to Steve Jobs' death. The comment is defending RMS using an oft-quoted verse of Jobs', where he defends mavericks making their own rules and violating the status quo. The comment makes a very insightful link, and is not offensive or malicious. Yet it's downmodded to dead status, something that other comments in the same thread didn't have happen despite being much more fractious. Why was it downmodded? Who can say? It's probably fanboys, nothing else makes sense from a mature point of view. Which reminds me of another issue with the mod system: it's totally anonymous. There is no accountability. You can diminish someone else's statement without giving a reason why nor standing behind it with your own name/pseudonym. Again, the forum I come from gives you the option to see who modded a comment whichever way - which while there is the occasional problem, is overall a significant net gain for an online community that strives to keep things mature.

eddmc 15y ago
I like your feature request of showing my (up/down) voting history within my HN profile.