4 ms·

The problem is that the upvote/downvote functionality is overloaded. One usage is symmetrical, but the other is not. If a user downvotes a comment because it vi

The problem is that the upvote/downvote functionality is overloaded. One usage is symmetrical, but the other is not. If a user downvotes a comment because it violates the HN guidelines, that usage is just as valuable as an upvote to reward an informative or well-written comment. But if a user downvotes a comment simply because they disagree, the site is robbed of their reasoning, while a user who upvotes a comment because they agree helps the site avoid needless duplication. People tend to confuse these separate uses, and the symmetrical presentation in the UI reinforces the impression that the function is also symmetrical when it really isn't.

samstave 15y ago
I wish I could side-vote this "Insightful"
brudgers 15y ago
I think you have overloaded "agree" and underloaded "disagree." I.e. I may agree with the sentiment of a snarky post and upvote it and thereby damage the discourse by encouraging snark. Likewise, I may disagree with the premise of a post because it is absurd, and improve the discourse by downvoting it. Furthermore, downvotes don't rob the site of a person's reasoning and posts frequently go from negative to positive territory. In other words, karma is intended to behave like karma and largely does - people even worry about it.
- vannevar 15y ago
  I may agree with the sentiment of a snarky post and upvote it and thereby damage the discourse by encouraging snark. Sure, no karma system can prevent people from deliberately rewarding bad behavior. But at least you won't be posting another redundant snarky post, which makes my point that using upvotes to agree helps the site. [D]ownvotes don't rob the site of a person's reasoning Sure they do. If I downvote a post I don't agree with instead of replying to it, no one else knows why I disagreed. I may have knowledge that would be of general interest to the community. Which makes my second point, that downvotes to disagree harm the site. Using karma to promote quality posting and discourage negative behavior is symmetrical; using it to agree and disagree is not.

samstave 15y ago

I wish I could side-vote this "Insightful"

brudgers 15y ago

I think you have overloaded "agree" and underloaded "disagree." I.e. I may agree with the sentiment of a snarky post and upvote it and thereby damage the discourse by encouraging snark. Likewise, I may disagree with the premise of a post because it is absurd, and improve the discourse by downvoting it. Furthermore, downvotes don't rob the site of a person's reasoning and posts frequently go from negative to positive territory. In other words, karma is intended to behave like karma and largely does - people even worry about it.

vannevar 15y ago
I may agree with the sentiment of a snarky post and upvote it and thereby damage the discourse by encouraging snark. Sure, no karma system can prevent people from deliberately rewarding bad behavior. But at least you won't be posting another redundant snarky post, which makes my point that using upvotes to agree helps the site. [D]ownvotes don't rob the site of a person's reasoning Sure they do. If I downvote a post I don't agree with instead of replying to it, no one else knows why I disagreed. I may have knowledge that would be of general interest to the community. Which makes my second point, that downvotes to disagree harm the site. Using karma to promote quality posting and discourage negative behavior is symmetrical; using it to agree and disagree is not.