3 ms·

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 visi

by 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.
- Volundr 4y ago
  > Again, the buttons have no real meaning. HN sorts downvoted comments lower in the page, colors them gray, and hides them from users by default. The only reason your comment is near the top of the page is because it's attached to the most upvoted top-level comment. It can't go any lower without breaking the comment thread. Downvotes also take away karma and HN shadowbans people with negative karma. None of this is just "analytics data" or how you'd want to treat someone writing informative comments. Your assertion the buttons are meaningless is directly at odds with how the site works.
  - randomdata 4y ago
    > HN sorts downvoted comments lower in the page At the time of posting this my comment sits with -2 points and, if read in order from top to bottom, is the 12th comment you will read. There are 112 total comments. Which must mean that 100 comments much be even lower than -2, based on what you are telling us. If we assume people are downvoting poor content, that is not a good look for HN if at least 101 comments – almost all of them – were considered to be of low value. The thing is, my read on most of those comments is that they are quite good and often informative. The outcome does not match your expectations. > None of this is just "analytics data" What else is gleaned from it? All I can know is that several people pressed a button. All that can tell me is that at least a handful of people saw my content. It is a weak analytics system, to be sure, but understandably you want to limit how much information is given, including for reasons of privacy. And, most importantly, you don't want to reveal any information to the trolls.
    - Volundr 4y ago
      Again, your comment is in reply to the top voted comment. It's not above those other comments because it scores higher, it's above those other comments because it literally cannot go any lower than it currently is without breaking the thread. It's sorted at the bottom of the reply chain. A couple more downvotes and people would have to turn on show dead to even see it. By default it'd be invisible. That's how we treat "informative comments"? Heck if the the buttons are meaningless, why can't you downvote direct replies? People replying to your comment can't provide informative comments? > What else is gleaned from it? Primarily user-based moderation. Downvoted comments are dropped lower in the page, and removed if downvoted enough. Users who are sufficiently downvoted are shadowbanned, all without moderator intervention.

by felurx 4y ago

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.

Volundr 4y ago
> Again, the buttons have no real meaning. HN sorts downvoted comments lower in the page, colors them gray, and hides them from users by default. The only reason your comment is near the top of the page is because it's attached to the most upvoted top-level comment. It can't go any lower without breaking the comment thread. Downvotes also take away karma and HN shadowbans people with negative karma. None of this is just "analytics data" or how you'd want to treat someone writing informative comments. Your assertion the buttons are meaningless is directly at odds with how the site works.
- randomdata 4y ago
  > HN sorts downvoted comments lower in the page At the time of posting this my comment sits with -2 points and, if read in order from top to bottom, is the 12th comment you will read. There are 112 total comments. Which must mean that 100 comments much be even lower than -2, based on what you are telling us. If we assume people are downvoting poor content, that is not a good look for HN if at least 101 comments – almost all of them – were considered to be of low value. The thing is, my read on most of those comments is that they are quite good and often informative. The outcome does not match your expectations. > None of this is just "analytics data" What else is gleaned from it? All I can know is that several people pressed a button. All that can tell me is that at least a handful of people saw my content. It is a weak analytics system, to be sure, but understandably you want to limit how much information is given, including for reasons of privacy. And, most importantly, you don't want to reveal any information to the trolls.
  - Volundr 4y ago
    Again, your comment is in reply to the top voted comment. It's not above those other comments because it scores higher, it's above those other comments because it literally cannot go any lower than it currently is without breaking the thread. It's sorted at the bottom of the reply chain. A couple more downvotes and people would have to turn on show dead to even see it. By default it'd be invisible. That's how we treat "informative comments"? Heck if the the buttons are meaningless, why can't you downvote direct replies? People replying to your comment can't provide informative comments? > What else is gleaned from it? Primarily user-based moderation. Downvoted comments are dropped lower in the page, and removed if downvoted enough. Users who are sufficiently downvoted are shadowbanned, all without moderator intervention.