4 ms·

> Heck if the the buttons are meaningless, why can't you downvote direct replies? To incentivize replying instead. From the site's perspective, the reply is th

> Heck if the the buttons are meaningless, why can't you downvote direct replies? To incentivize replying instead. From the site's perspective, the reply is the preferred way to indicate to another that you saw their comment. Content is its bread and butter at the end of the day. A site that is nothing more than a bunch of arrows that people press would never gain any users. However, it is well understood that only a small fraction of users are content creators. Most users will not take the time to formulate a reply. Thus the vote buttons are offered as a lower friction option to try and get them engaged in at least some capacity in order to give the analytics feedback to those who are creating the content. Once you have provided a comment, though, you have demonstrated to the site that you are a content creator and are statistically likely to produce more content again in the future. > People replying to your comment can't provide informative comments? They will know that you read their comment when you reply to it. The buttons themselves do not carry meaning, they only let you know that someone saw your comment. It is not that you must press the button when it is informative, that's just the convention that seems to have been settled on as what other use would the button be for? You certainly are not going to press it if you encounter a troll as that feeds them. The first rule of using the internet is do not feed the trolls. Why would you ever violate the internet's first rule? You wouldn't, of course. > Downvoted comments are dropped lower in the page Demonstrably not.

Volundr 4y ago
At this point I'll just point you to the HN FAQ (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html), since you seem to be unaware of some core functionality of this site and are clearly not actually reading my comments. If you'd actually like some ideas of how the HN software responds to up/downvotes I suggest you read it.
- randomdata 4y ago
  I'm afraid there isn't much written about the buttons we're speaking about there, but this tidbit may be pertinent: "Users should vote for a story because they personally find it intellectually interesting" Granted, we are talking about comments, not stories, but presumably the same logic holds? What do you find intellectually interesting about low value content? Doesn't the premise of downvoting "bad" content violate the notion of it being intellectually interesting, thus violating the intent of the voting system? But let's assume that comments are meant to be treated differently. All we really have to go on with respect to comments is from pg[1]. He indicates that the buttons have no meaning; use it however you please. He only considers it abuse if you press the button without reading the comment first, which, again, goes back to it being an analytics system. In fact, there already exists a flag button for dealing with "bad" content which doesn't reveal analytics data to the user. pg was an early pioneer in developing methods to stop spammers[2], so no doubt he, more than most, understands the importance of not leaking participation data to spammers. If they know you're reading, they're going to keep on doing it. Only when they think their audience has disappeared will they stop. And, so, downvoting their content is ultimately nonsensical, even if nobody is going to ban you if you do. Given that the buttons have no meaning, there is no policing. It is fundamentally impossible to determine your voting intent by observing your action of pressing an unlabelled button. But there is an assumption that you will use the buttons in good faith around content you find interesting, not to feed the trolls. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 [2] http://paulgraham.com/spam.html http://paulgraham.com/spam.html

Volundr 4y ago

At this point I'll just point you to the HN FAQ (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html), since you seem to be unaware of some core functionality of this site and are clearly not actually reading my comments. If you'd actually like some ideas of how the HN software responds to up/downvotes I suggest you read it.

randomdata 4y ago
I'm afraid there isn't much written about the buttons we're speaking about there, but this tidbit may be pertinent: "Users should vote for a story because they personally find it intellectually interesting" Granted, we are talking about comments, not stories, but presumably the same logic holds? What do you find intellectually interesting about low value content? Doesn't the premise of downvoting "bad" content violate the notion of it being intellectually interesting, thus violating the intent of the voting system? But let's assume that comments are meant to be treated differently. All we really have to go on with respect to comments is from pg[1]. He indicates that the buttons have no meaning; use it however you please. He only considers it abuse if you press the button without reading the comment first, which, again, goes back to it being an analytics system. In fact, there already exists a flag button for dealing with "bad" content which doesn't reveal analytics data to the user. pg was an early pioneer in developing methods to stop spammers[2], so no doubt he, more than most, understands the importance of not leaking participation data to spammers. If they know you're reading, they're going to keep on doing it. Only when they think their audience has disappeared will they stop. And, so, downvoting their content is ultimately nonsensical, even if nobody is going to ban you if you do. Given that the buttons have no meaning, there is no policing. It is fundamentally impossible to determine your voting intent by observing your action of pressing an unlabelled button. But there is an assumption that you will use the buttons in good faith around content you find interesting, not to feed the trolls. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171 [2] http://paulgraham.com/spam.html http://paulgraham.com/spam.html