5 ms·

> downvoting rude, angry, and insulty comments. That seems like a poor idea. Reactions incentivize them to post more of the same, knowing with reasonable confi

> downvoting rude, angry, and insulty comments. That seems like a poor idea. Reactions incentivize them to post more of the same, knowing with reasonable confidence that the comment was read. Low value content should not be given the time of day, which will leave those posting low value content to start to wonder if anyone is even seeing it, eventually boring them. Upvote = funny, downvote = informative is the standard approach.

giancarlostoro 4y ago
I would instead suggest to 'flag' comments that are rude, angry and insulting.
saagarjha 4y ago
Why would anyone want to downvote an informative comment?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  We can speculate, but it is observed, albeit not universally.
- randomdata 4y ago
  Why would you reward an informative comment with analytics data? To try and encourage more of the same. The opposite of why you would not reward poor content with a "read receipt". Like before, content that sees no data in return will eventually bore those creating it. In the case of someone posting informative content, you don't want the author to get bored.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    But surely downvotes will discourage informative comments? I'd most certainly be discouraged to find that comment I worked hard on to provide context in an area I'm an expert grey and dead. Thank goodness this is not actually how most people use up/downvotes.
    - randomdata 4y ago
      Why would you be discouraged by knowing that, under a reasonable assumption, that someone read your comment? Isn't that kind of the whole point of contributing? To have people read your content? When you receive no feedback is when you are left to think that nobody saw it. That's when you grow bored and eventually quit.
      - felurx 4y ago
        The point of up- and downvoting literally is to decide what should be more or less visible. By downvoting useful/informative content, you're making it less visible for others, and for most people, it's discouraging to see that someone just pressed the "I did not like that, I think it's bad, show it to less people" button. You're the first person I've ever seen to say to downvote informative content, and that's a very good thing, because if everyone behaved like that, that behaviour would be like dumping fuel into the fire that is post-facticism and ignorance on the internet.
        randomdata 4y ago
        If that were the case there would be no benefit in providing information to the content creator about the points their comment has received. Instead, we can determine this information is provided because the purpose of voting is to provide a "read receipt" to the creator, enabling one to know that someone has, with a reasonable degree of confidence, consumed his content. It is ultimately a poor man's analytics system. For what reason would you want to provide analytics data to a creator when you believe their content is "bad"? As I said before, the reason one will post on HN is to have their content seen by an audience. After all, if your intent was simply to write, why not open up notepad.exe instead? The reality is that users come to HN for the audience it provides. Logically, if someone is creating low value content, you want to leave them believing that no audience is seeing their content, not feed them with information. Don't feed the trolls, as the saying goes. There is no actual meaning given to the buttons. No rules which state that you can press them only under exacting circumstances. Paul Graham himself says that they have no meaning and you are free to use them as you please, asking only that you do not press a button until you have genuinely read the content associated with it, corroborating the idea that it is meant to be an analytics system of sorts. As you have even pointed out yourself, interpretation is left to the user pressing the button. Which means that all you can know is that someone pressed a button. And therefore, again, it is only usable information is to know if you have an audience or not. And when it comes to low value you content, you want to hide from the user that they have an audience. Don't feed the trolls, as the saying goes. Furthermore, I am not sure your logic holds. I have received a number of informative/downvote responses for my comment and it is currently found near the top of the page where most will see it and as a result has also garnered the most reply activity any of my comments have seen to date. If users are trying to make it less visible, they have failed miserably. The feedback that has been provided indicates that this is one of my most visible comments ever. Again, the buttons have no real meaning. They are there simply to provide knowledge of someone having consumed your content. However, to try and find meaning, it seems most have settled on upvote = funny, downvote = informative. What is certain is that you do not want to feed the trolls. Providing analytics data to those creating garbage is how you end up with "post-facticism and ignorance on the internet" so the idea of using the downarrow to ward off negative content is completely nonsensical.
andrewflnr 4y ago
The thing is, downvoting directly makes a comment less visible. The point is more any managing SNR than the feelings of the poster, so downvoting is still the right thing even if you're worried about rewarding them with negative attention. But even then, they know a downvote means several more people won't see their comment at all. And most people genuinely still don't like downvotes, so they're an effective signal of what's accepted or not in the community. In short, the poster's feelings are pretty irrelevant when it comes to downvoting.

giancarlostoro 4y ago

I would instead suggest to 'flag' comments that are rude, angry and insulting.

saagarjha 4y ago

Why would anyone want to downvote an informative comment?

ncmncm 4y ago
We can speculate, but it is observed, albeit not universally.
randomdata 4y ago
Why would you reward an informative comment with analytics data? To try and encourage more of the same. The opposite of why you would not reward poor content with a "read receipt". Like before, content that sees no data in return will eventually bore those creating it. In the case of someone posting informative content, you don't want the author to get bored.
- Volundr 4y ago
  But surely downvotes will discourage informative comments? I'd most certainly be discouraged to find that comment I worked hard on to provide context in an area I'm an expert grey and dead. Thank goodness this is not actually how most people use up/downvotes.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    Why would you be discouraged by knowing that, under a reasonable assumption, that someone read your comment? Isn't that kind of the whole point of contributing? To have people read your content? When you receive no feedback is when you are left to think that nobody saw it. That's when you grow bored and eventually quit.
    - felurx 4y ago
      The point of up- and downvoting literally is to decide what should be more or less visible. By downvoting useful/informative content, you're making it less visible for others, and for most people, it's discouraging to see that someone just pressed the "I did not like that, I think it's bad, show it to less people" button. You're the first person I've ever seen to say to downvote informative content, and that's a very good thing, because if everyone behaved like that, that behaviour would be like dumping fuel into the fire that is post-facticism and ignorance on the internet.
      - randomdata 4y ago
        If that were the case there would be no benefit in providing information to the content creator about the points their comment has received. Instead, we can determine this information is provided because the purpose of voting is to provide a "read receipt" to the creator, enabling one to know that someone has, with a reasonable degree of confidence, consumed his content. It is ultimately a poor man's analytics system. For what reason would you want to provide analytics data to a creator when you believe their content is "bad"? As I said before, the reason one will post on HN is to have their content seen by an audience. After all, if your intent was simply to write, why not open up notepad.exe instead? The reality is that users come to HN for the audience it provides. Logically, if someone is creating low value content, you want to leave them believing that no audience is seeing their content, not feed them with information. Don't feed the trolls, as the saying goes. There is no actual meaning given to the buttons. No rules which state that you can press them only under exacting circumstances. Paul Graham himself says that they have no meaning and you are free to use them as you please, asking only that you do not press a button until you have genuinely read the content associated with it, corroborating the idea that it is meant to be an analytics system of sorts. As you have even pointed out yourself, interpretation is left to the user pressing the button. Which means that all you can know is that someone pressed a button. And therefore, again, it is only usable information is to know if you have an audience or not. And when it comes to low value you content, you want to hide from the user that they have an audience. Don't feed the trolls, as the saying goes. Furthermore, I am not sure your logic holds. I have received a number of informative/downvote responses for my comment and it is currently found near the top of the page where most will see it and as a result has also garnered the most reply activity any of my comments have seen to date. If users are trying to make it less visible, they have failed miserably. The feedback that has been provided indicates that this is one of my most visible comments ever. Again, the buttons have no real meaning. They are there simply to provide knowledge of someone having consumed your content. However, to try and find meaning, it seems most have settled on upvote = funny, downvote = informative. What is certain is that you do not want to feed the trolls. Providing analytics data to those creating garbage is how you end up with "post-facticism and ignorance on the internet" so the idea of using the downarrow to ward off negative content is completely nonsensical.

andrewflnr 4y ago

The thing is, downvoting directly makes a comment less visible. The point is more any managing SNR than the feelings of the poster, so downvoting is still the right thing even if you're worried about rewarding them with negative attention. But even then, they know a downvote means several more people won't see their comment at all. And most people genuinely still don't like downvotes, so they're an effective signal of what's accepted or not in the community. In short, the poster's feelings are pretty irrelevant when it comes to downvoting.