3 ms·

It's an interesting idea, but you'd end up with a situation where the worse the comment, the more discussion it generates due to the forced replies, which is so

It's an interesting idea, but you'd end up with a situation where the worse the comment, the more discussion it generates due to the forced replies, which is sort of the opposite of what you want.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Perhaps a system where a comment can only be downvoted if it has at least one reply? So someone has to explain, but only once
- jedberg 3y ago
  A perhaps viable idea. You should email it in and see what they say.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  I think some sites have a feature, that when you downvote, you have to add some words/tags to why you downvote. I like that idea, it gives the commenter some concrete feedback, but also the downvoter a moment for reflection (is this really a bad comment, or do I just have a bite reflex because its language sounds like a (ideological) side I hate?) I know that I have stupidly taken some downvotes personally, but later realized, those comments were maybe not bad by itself, but in that context attracting flamewar OT debates. With some extra words, I would have realized sooner. And downvoting for merely not liking someones opinion is something I really don't like, but is explicitely allowed here.
  - creer 3y ago
    That sounds like a useful way
- pvg 3y ago
  It has the exact same problem as the original idea - its motivation and purpose is really reducing the personal sting of getting downvoted, not 'producing an interesting set of comments ordered by some approximation of interestingness'. Notice how nobody ever suggests or advocates for 'receipts for upvotes'. It's a totally sane motivation it just doesn't obviously make a messageboard better.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    It depends on the commenter. Some truly want to learn and get better, and in those cases it will make the board better.
    - pvg 3y ago
      These things aren't mutually exclusive and the commenters who want to get better (and/or develop more resilience to mild online criticism) do so just fine without the noise cost. There are lots of other ways one could try to dampen the unpleasantness that don't involve the extraordinary burden of receipts for downvotes. I guess that's probably the best way to summarize this argument - the extraordinary burden demands extraordinary benefit and not even the people who are really into this idea often argue the benefit would be commensurate with the burden.
arfafaerhgaq5 3y ago
[flagged]
- TX81Z 3y ago
  In the market of ideas you’re failing, and that’s the signal you’re getting. It sounds like you don’t care to adjust to “the crowd”, which is fine, but then you have to deal with the consequences.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    I remember when there were no upvotes and downvotes on forums, and each comment stood on it's own merits. We have to remember that for every user down voting, there are a hundred lurkers just reading. There are also a bunch of activists here on HN as on other forums, who will categorically downvote every comment by certain posters because they maybe wrote something they disagreed with several years ago.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      > There are also a bunch of activists here on HN as on other forums, who will categorically downvote every comment by certain posters because they maybe wrote something they disagreed with several years ago. Interesting. How do you know?
      - kergonath 3y ago
        Confirmation bias. It’s the same in most forums I follow; there is always someone complaining about an imaginary person downvoting everything. Which is always bullshit because even if a couple of posts had one single downvote by the time the comment was written (though there is nothing to say whether this was from a single account), it is never the case if you wait a bit. I guess part of us really want to be against other people and the shady systematic downvoter fills that role. It is always stupid, though. Luckily we don’t get much of that here.
      - krapp 3y ago
lliamander 3y ago
Yup, the incentive should always be to direct people toward high-value conversations.

It's an interesting idea, but you'd end up with a situation where the worse the comment, the more discussion it generates due to the forced replies, which is sort of the opposite of what you want.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

Perhaps a system where a comment can only be downvoted if it has at least one reply? So someone has to explain, but only once

jedberg 3y ago
A perhaps viable idea. You should email it in and see what they say.
hutzlibu 3y ago
I think some sites have a feature, that when you downvote, you have to add some words/tags to why you downvote. I like that idea, it gives the commenter some concrete feedback, but also the downvoter a moment for reflection (is this really a bad comment, or do I just have a bite reflex because its language sounds like a (ideological) side I hate?) I know that I have stupidly taken some downvotes personally, but later realized, those comments were maybe not bad by itself, but in that context attracting flamewar OT debates. With some extra words, I would have realized sooner. And downvoting for merely not liking someones opinion is something I really don't like, but is explicitely allowed here.
- creer 3y ago
  That sounds like a useful way
pvg 3y ago
It has the exact same problem as the original idea - its motivation and purpose is really reducing the personal sting of getting downvoted, not 'producing an interesting set of comments ordered by some approximation of interestingness'. Notice how nobody ever suggests or advocates for 'receipts for upvotes'. It's a totally sane motivation it just doesn't obviously make a messageboard better.
- jedberg 3y ago
  It depends on the commenter. Some truly want to learn and get better, and in those cases it will make the board better.
  - pvg 3y ago
    These things aren't mutually exclusive and the commenters who want to get better (and/or develop more resilience to mild online criticism) do so just fine without the noise cost. There are lots of other ways one could try to dampen the unpleasantness that don't involve the extraordinary burden of receipts for downvotes. I guess that's probably the best way to summarize this argument - the extraordinary burden demands extraordinary benefit and not even the people who are really into this idea often argue the benefit would be commensurate with the burden.

arfafaerhgaq5 3y ago

[flagged]

TX81Z 3y ago
In the market of ideas you’re failing, and that’s the signal you’re getting. It sounds like you don’t care to adjust to “the crowd”, which is fine, but then you have to deal with the consequences.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  I remember when there were no upvotes and downvotes on forums, and each comment stood on it's own merits. We have to remember that for every user down voting, there are a hundred lurkers just reading. There are also a bunch of activists here on HN as on other forums, who will categorically downvote every comment by certain posters because they maybe wrote something they disagreed with several years ago.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    > There are also a bunch of activists here on HN as on other forums, who will categorically downvote every comment by certain posters because they maybe wrote something they disagreed with several years ago. Interesting. How do you know?
    - kergonath 3y ago
      Confirmation bias. It’s the same in most forums I follow; there is always someone complaining about an imaginary person downvoting everything. Which is always bullshit because even if a couple of posts had one single downvote by the time the comment was written (though there is nothing to say whether this was from a single account), it is never the case if you wait a bit. I guess part of us really want to be against other people and the shady systematic downvoter fills that role. It is always stupid, though. Luckily we don’t get much of that here.
    - krapp 3y ago

lliamander 3y ago

Yup, the incentive should always be to direct people toward high-value conversations.