5 ms·

> Also, the ones that say "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site", which I wish you would respect. But that'

> Also, the ones that say "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site", which I wish you would respect. But that's precisely what happens when you give people no other option to vote against something: they write comments complaining about it. It's a direct and very literal consequence of the design decision not to allow downvotes on article submissions. Besides, I only brought that up because pg said: > The reason HN doesn't need downvotes is that HN, unlike Reddit, kills lame articles. Which is generally true, but clearly not true today because the top rated article is, as you said, borderline. And from my perspective, it is not at all borderline, and I'd vote against it in a heartbeat.

gruseom 18y ago
That last point is a doozy of a non sequitur. Borderline does not equal lame. Not everyone agrees on what is interesting, so there will always be borderline cases, and these are not a problem. On the contrary, they add to the intellectual diversity of the site, which is its mandate.
- codinghorror 18y ago
  > Not everyone agrees on what is interesting The problem is that the upvoters get a highly disproportionate say in the matter. Let's say - 30% of the HN community finds that drug war article interesting. They all upvote it. - 20% don't care or have no opinion. They do nothing. - The other 50% think the article is only marginally on-topic. (I would say it is not at all on topic, but let's give the benefit of the doubt.) For those HN users, the article isn't spam or evil or lame (it's the freakin' Economist!), so lumping it in with that sort of nastiness by flagging it seems extreme -- a bit like the nuclear option. I can't find any description of how the flagging works, so I don't know if flag counts are public or not. What you end up with is a plurality of public upvoters balanced by a (I'm assuming) silent and mostly invisible minority of off-topic flaggers. These are very different axes of expression. They don't really balance each other in the case of a marginally on-topic submission. What would help, particularly in these marginal cases, is a reciprocal downvote.
  - swivelmaster 18y ago
    I have enough points to downvote comments, I come here all the time, and I've never felt the need to downvote a story. I just ignore it and wonder why everyone else thinks it's so interesting.
    - codinghorror 18y ago
      I totally respect the Economist, but are they really saying something about the pointlessness of the drug war that I haven't heard a thousand times over already? Furthermore does it belong on a site devoted primarily to programming topics? And on top of that it is clearly politics, which isn't fun to discuss or engage in. Unless you enjoy other high-risk, low-reward activities like, say, juggling chainsaws..
      - swivelmaster 18y ago
        I have a lot of nerdy friends who love discussing politics. Some of them also code. I don't think it's fair to make the generalization that politics isn't fun to discuss.
  - jshen 18y ago
    I've created a number of social sites and I've come to the conclusion that down-voting should not generally be allowed/used. The reason is that 9 times out of 10 it's used as a way to say "I disagree with this" regardless of the quality or accuracy of the item in question. Usually based solely on political and religious world-views. This effect is probably muted on SO which is primarily technical.
  - kulkarnic 18y ago
    I understand the urge to make software perfect; but really a usable system need NOT be fair, democratic, open and with set rules that may be debated upon (e.g. www.xkcd.com: We don't ask for democratic control over what comics are "on-topic". Yes, I know it's a personal site; but consider: would you ask 37Signals to change their blog to your liking?) What we really need is a system that works most of the time. The cost of a false negative with down-voting (losing a genuinely insightful article as off-topic etc) is simply too high, IMO. As regards the comparison with Stack Overflow: I find it rather pointless; the sites exist to serve different purposes altogether. Perhaps you could rethink your initial thoughts given all the comments above and provide an even more interesting analysis of how user behavior is modified by the presence of certain features... :)
tptacek 18y ago
The fact that people complain publicly about posts is a feature, not a bug: in moderation, it communicates among the group what the standards are for stories, and trains new users about flagging stories. On the other hand, with a downvote, there's no opportunity for discussion, and the end result is that worthwhile stories about out-of-fashion concepts like Perl or .NET or software patents get suppressed. It's worth mentioning how often the intent of voting is misconstrued; is it "I disagree with this" or "this adds no value"?
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  Or "I want/don't-want people to see this" Or "Karma payback time, dude" In practical terms, it means all of that. What it is "supposed" to mean, I guess, is stuff that PG likes to see (or not)

gruseom 18y ago

That last point is a doozy of a non sequitur. Borderline does not equal lame. Not everyone agrees on what is interesting, so there will always be borderline cases, and these are not a problem. On the contrary, they add to the intellectual diversity of the site, which is its mandate.

codinghorror 18y ago
> Not everyone agrees on what is interesting The problem is that the upvoters get a highly disproportionate say in the matter. Let's say - 30% of the HN community finds that drug war article interesting. They all upvote it. - 20% don't care or have no opinion. They do nothing. - The other 50% think the article is only marginally on-topic. (I would say it is not at all on topic, but let's give the benefit of the doubt.) For those HN users, the article isn't spam or evil or lame (it's the freakin' Economist!), so lumping it in with that sort of nastiness by flagging it seems extreme -- a bit like the nuclear option. I can't find any description of how the flagging works, so I don't know if flag counts are public or not. What you end up with is a plurality of public upvoters balanced by a (I'm assuming) silent and mostly invisible minority of off-topic flaggers. These are very different axes of expression. They don't really balance each other in the case of a marginally on-topic submission. What would help, particularly in these marginal cases, is a reciprocal downvote.
- swivelmaster 18y ago
  I have enough points to downvote comments, I come here all the time, and I've never felt the need to downvote a story. I just ignore it and wonder why everyone else thinks it's so interesting.
  - codinghorror 18y ago
    I totally respect the Economist, but are they really saying something about the pointlessness of the drug war that I haven't heard a thousand times over already? Furthermore does it belong on a site devoted primarily to programming topics? And on top of that it is clearly politics, which isn't fun to discuss or engage in. Unless you enjoy other high-risk, low-reward activities like, say, juggling chainsaws..
    - swivelmaster 18y ago
      I have a lot of nerdy friends who love discussing politics. Some of them also code. I don't think it's fair to make the generalization that politics isn't fun to discuss.
- jshen 18y ago
  I've created a number of social sites and I've come to the conclusion that down-voting should not generally be allowed/used. The reason is that 9 times out of 10 it's used as a way to say "I disagree with this" regardless of the quality or accuracy of the item in question. Usually based solely on political and religious world-views. This effect is probably muted on SO which is primarily technical.
- kulkarnic 18y ago
  I understand the urge to make software perfect; but really a usable system need NOT be fair, democratic, open and with set rules that may be debated upon (e.g. www.xkcd.com: We don't ask for democratic control over what comics are "on-topic". Yes, I know it's a personal site; but consider: would you ask 37Signals to change their blog to your liking?) What we really need is a system that works most of the time. The cost of a false negative with down-voting (losing a genuinely insightful article as off-topic etc) is simply too high, IMO. As regards the comparison with Stack Overflow: I find it rather pointless; the sites exist to serve different purposes altogether. Perhaps you could rethink your initial thoughts given all the comments above and provide an even more interesting analysis of how user behavior is modified by the presence of certain features... :)

tptacek 18y ago

The fact that people complain publicly about posts is a feature, not a bug: in moderation, it communicates among the group what the standards are for stories, and trains new users about flagging stories. On the other hand, with a downvote, there's no opportunity for discussion, and the end result is that worthwhile stories about out-of-fashion concepts like Perl or .NET or software patents get suppressed. It's worth mentioning how often the intent of voting is misconstrued; is it "I disagree with this" or "this adds no value"?

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
Or "I want/don't-want people to see this" Or "Karma payback time, dude" In practical terms, it means all of that. What it is "supposed" to mean, I guess, is stuff that PG likes to see (or not)