3 ms·

I don't remember ever seeing another reason I had a comment downvoted.

tialaramex 3y ago
I used to sometimes get downvoted heavily for disagreeing with longtime HN favourite Thomas Ptacek, but that eased off a lot after one time I'm like "LOL, the transcripts for your show are so wrong" and Thomas misread that as me claiming the experts on the show are wrong rather than the transcripts so he was indignant. Initially I got the most downvotes I think I'd ever seen†, and then Thomas realised oops, yeah, he's not saying what I thought he's saying and it shot back up over the course of an hour or so. IIRC the auto-transcripts for example transcribe PKIX (an RFC explaining how we shall use the X509 certificate system for the Internet, and the regime resulting from that RFC) as "Peacocks". Hilarious. But, not a criticism of the person on the show (Ryan Sleevi I believe, who I rather like although we've never met in person). I have written things I don't feel good about, especially trolling groups who believe something I don't, and deserved to be downvoted even if they were strictly true. But those mostly get -1 or -2 or something. Thomas' fans just keep hitting that down arrow apparently. Other than disagreeing with Thomas, the main way I got sizeable negative voting was being wrong and then going to sleep without correcting it. Say 2+2 = 3 on a Thursday evening, but correct it to "1+2 = 3" a quarter hour later? Probably get one or two downvotes. Leave it that way overnight? Wake up to 10 downvotes at least. People will kick you if you don't react. I remember picking an erroneous example in one of the endless Rust v C++ threads, and then going to bed, and yup, very clear I was wrong when I woke up.
- mgaunard 3y ago
  I always find it weird when people even pay attention to what the name of the person is. A comment should be evaluated on its own, not based on who it was written by.
  - aw1621107 3y ago
    That's a nice sentiment, but I'm not sure it's always a practical one to take simply because no one has the expertise/time/knowledge to evaluate all of the comments they read for accuracy/completeness/etc, especially if commenters are disagreeing on a subject you are not an expert in. For example, if a comment claims an article is wrong about the development and use of the Nagle algorithm, I am very much not well-equipped to evaluate the comment on its own since that is not an area I know much about. If I see that comment was written by Animats, though, I can be reasonably confident I should trust the comment over the article, since he invented the algorithm.
    - mgaunard 3y ago
      The correct approach is to assume that people bear no ill will -- I believe that is even part of the posting guidelines. If someone makes the statement that something in an article is incorrect, and fails to takes into account some minutiae, it is probably because the person is knowledgeable about the topic and believes it to be the case. There is no need to research who the author is, or to mod the person down because he appears to be a contrarian that doesn't follow the hivemind. If anything, that's just an interesting subject to look into.
      - aw1621107 3y ago
        > The correct approach is to assume that people bear no ill will -- I believe that is even part of the posting guidelines. It is, but intent is distinct from correctness. I can believe that everyone is commenting in good faith and stating their honest beliefs, but that is little help when commenters take contrary positions and I would like to determine who is correct despite not being knowledgeable myself. Under those circumstances, authorship is a useful signal. It doesn't need to be the sole determining factor, of course, but it's better than nothing.
        mgaunard 3y ago
        I don't personally believe in using people's fame as a proxy for assessing correctness. I think it best to make your own opinion based on the arguments presented to you. Sure, someone may convincingly say wrong things, and you might end up believing them, but then it's up to you to develop your own ability to see through bullshit (of which there is a lot in the tech space, especially when you get close to VCs).
        aw1621107 3y ago
        > I don't personally believe in using people's fame as a proxy for assessing correctness. I'd hope most people would agree with you, since fame is not the same as expertise. A well-known author who happens to talk about a subject they are knowledgeable about can be worth paying attention to, but the same author talking about a completely different field may (should?) warrant more skepticism. Authorship can be a useful signal, but that doesn't mean it is always a useful signal. > but then it's up to you to develop your own ability to see through bullshit I mean, yes, that is ideal, but unfortunately but not all BS is equally detectable. Sometimes it really does take intimate knowledge to know someone is incorrect, and achieving that for everything just is not realistic for most, if not all, people.
  - matheusmoreira 3y ago
    It's even weirder when you notice the names. I remember a few instances where the person who replied to my post turned out to be the creator of a major programming language. I try to avoid looking at the names until after the discussion is over. When I remember the fact I'm posting among giants, I find it difficult to post at all. HN is a place where the person who created an algorithm shows up to explain it to you. The fact such people post here is the number one reason to come here.
    - mgaunard 3y ago
      I believe you'll do them a favour by not paying attention to who they are.
  - kiitos 3y ago
    You're just consistently a jerk in all of your comments. I'm not sure what else you expect.

I used to sometimes get downvoted heavily for disagreeing with longtime HN favourite Thomas Ptacek, but that eased off a lot after one time I'm like "LOL, the transcripts for your show are so wrong" and Thomas misread that as me claiming the experts on the show are wrong rather than the transcripts so he was indignant. Initially I got the most downvotes I think I'd ever seen†, and then Thomas realised oops, yeah, he's not saying what I thought he's saying and it shot back up over the course of an hour or so. IIRC the auto-transcripts for example transcribe PKIX (an RFC explaining how we shall use the X509 certificate system for the Internet, and the regime resulting from that RFC) as "Peacocks". Hilarious. But, not a criticism of the person on the show (Ryan Sleevi I believe, who I rather like although we've never met in person). I have written things I don't feel good about, especially trolling groups who believe something I don't, and deserved to be downvoted even if they were strictly true. But those mostly get -1 or -2 or something. Thomas' fans just keep hitting that down arrow apparently. Other than disagreeing with Thomas, the main way I got sizeable negative voting was being wrong and then going to sleep without correcting it. Say 2+2 = 3 on a Thursday evening, but correct it to "1+2 = 3" a quarter hour later? Probably get one or two downvotes. Leave it that way overnight? Wake up to 10 downvotes at least. People will kick you if you don't react. I remember picking an erroneous example in one of the endless Rust v C++ threads, and then going to bed, and yup, very clear I was wrong when I woke up.

mgaunard 3y ago
I always find it weird when people even pay attention to what the name of the person is. A comment should be evaluated on its own, not based on who it was written by.
- aw1621107 3y ago
  That's a nice sentiment, but I'm not sure it's always a practical one to take simply because no one has the expertise/time/knowledge to evaluate all of the comments they read for accuracy/completeness/etc, especially if commenters are disagreeing on a subject you are not an expert in. For example, if a comment claims an article is wrong about the development and use of the Nagle algorithm, I am very much not well-equipped to evaluate the comment on its own since that is not an area I know much about. If I see that comment was written by Animats, though, I can be reasonably confident I should trust the comment over the article, since he invented the algorithm.
  - mgaunard 3y ago
    The correct approach is to assume that people bear no ill will -- I believe that is even part of the posting guidelines. If someone makes the statement that something in an article is incorrect, and fails to takes into account some minutiae, it is probably because the person is knowledgeable about the topic and believes it to be the case. There is no need to research who the author is, or to mod the person down because he appears to be a contrarian that doesn't follow the hivemind. If anything, that's just an interesting subject to look into.
    - aw1621107 3y ago
      > The correct approach is to assume that people bear no ill will -- I believe that is even part of the posting guidelines. It is, but intent is distinct from correctness. I can believe that everyone is commenting in good faith and stating their honest beliefs, but that is little help when commenters take contrary positions and I would like to determine who is correct despite not being knowledgeable myself. Under those circumstances, authorship is a useful signal. It doesn't need to be the sole determining factor, of course, but it's better than nothing.
      - mgaunard 3y ago
        I don't personally believe in using people's fame as a proxy for assessing correctness. I think it best to make your own opinion based on the arguments presented to you. Sure, someone may convincingly say wrong things, and you might end up believing them, but then it's up to you to develop your own ability to see through bullshit (of which there is a lot in the tech space, especially when you get close to VCs).
        aw1621107 3y ago
        > I don't personally believe in using people's fame as a proxy for assessing correctness. I'd hope most people would agree with you, since fame is not the same as expertise. A well-known author who happens to talk about a subject they are knowledgeable about can be worth paying attention to, but the same author talking about a completely different field may (should?) warrant more skepticism. Authorship can be a useful signal, but that doesn't mean it is always a useful signal. > but then it's up to you to develop your own ability to see through bullshit I mean, yes, that is ideal, but unfortunately but not all BS is equally detectable. Sometimes it really does take intimate knowledge to know someone is incorrect, and achieving that for everything just is not realistic for most, if not all, people.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  It's even weirder when you notice the names. I remember a few instances where the person who replied to my post turned out to be the creator of a major programming language. I try to avoid looking at the names until after the discussion is over. When I remember the fact I'm posting among giants, I find it difficult to post at all. HN is a place where the person who created an algorithm shows up to explain it to you. The fact such people post here is the number one reason to come here.
  - mgaunard 3y ago
    I believe you'll do them a favour by not paying attention to who they are.
- kiitos 3y ago
  You're just consistently a jerk in all of your comments. I'm not sure what else you expect.