4 ms·

Don't you know you get down voted for agreeing with the author?

by aforty 13y ago

endtime 13y ago
I downvoted him because it's so unclear whether he was being sarcastic that the comment adds no value.
- samspenc 13y ago
  Thanks, I was NOT being sarcastic, sorry for not being clear on this. Most anti-Google articles that make it to HN are completely off-base, this one was quite rational.
  - endtime 13y ago
    Oh, well then, I totally disagree with you; I think the article was totally incoherent. But I don't downvote just for disagreement on HN.
    - rm999 13y ago
      His comment was not sarcastic and did add some value. The article didn't come off as incoherent to me, the author made a very clear point early in the article ("their products for users [the ones that collect information to inform advertising] are becoming confused, inarticulate, and increasingly malicious"), and he spent the rest of the article backing up the point. I believe that as a googler you have an obligation to be somewhat objective when google comes up. Googlers have been accused in the past of coming into discussions about google and downvoting critical comments, and I believe that happened here. There are enough employees at google that it can really affect the ordering of comments in these threads.
      - endtime 13y ago
        Why do you think I wasn't being objective? Or by "objective" do you actually mean the opposite (i.e. that I always have to be critical of Google, which is precisely as objective as never being critical of Google)? We are very critical internally, and I have done my share of criticizing (any Googler can verify this). And if it will make you feel better, personally I do agree with the author's point that Google+ is "getting on" everything. But this article, overall, is rambling and internally inconsistent, to the extent that I genuinely wasn't sure if the OP was being sarcastic by calling it "well-written".
        rm999 13y ago
        >Or by "objective" do you actually mean the opposite You're being very snarky and assuming the worst in people's comments. Both samspenc and I meant what we said, as most people generally do. Seriously, you've been less civil than you may realize. What do I mean by objective? You downvoted a comment that is actually pretty standard/common here ("I liked this article because X"). I can only imagine you acted this way because you are biased towards the topic; it's easy to deny you aren't, but you broke downvoting protocol either way. You're contributing to the stereotype of googlers acting badly in threads about google (my comments in this thread have been downvoted, something that virtually never happens to me on hackernews).
        endtime 13y ago
        >I can only imagine you acted this way because you are biased towards the topic This is exactly what I'm objecting to. >you broke downvoting protocol either way How did I break protocol if I am not (as you claim) lying?

Don't you know you get down voted for agreeing with the author?

by aforty 13y ago

Don't you know you get down voted for agreeing with the author?

endtime 13y ago

I downvoted him because it's so unclear whether he was being sarcastic that the comment adds no value.

samspenc 13y ago
Thanks, I was NOT being sarcastic, sorry for not being clear on this. Most anti-Google articles that make it to HN are completely off-base, this one was quite rational.
- endtime 13y ago
  Oh, well then, I totally disagree with you; I think the article was totally incoherent. But I don't downvote just for disagreement on HN.
  - rm999 13y ago
    His comment was not sarcastic and did add some value. The article didn't come off as incoherent to me, the author made a very clear point early in the article ("their products for users [the ones that collect information to inform advertising] are becoming confused, inarticulate, and increasingly malicious"), and he spent the rest of the article backing up the point. I believe that as a googler you have an obligation to be somewhat objective when google comes up. Googlers have been accused in the past of coming into discussions about google and downvoting critical comments, and I believe that happened here. There are enough employees at google that it can really affect the ordering of comments in these threads.
    - endtime 13y ago
      Why do you think I wasn't being objective? Or by "objective" do you actually mean the opposite (i.e. that I always have to be critical of Google, which is precisely as objective as never being critical of Google)? We are very critical internally, and I have done my share of criticizing (any Googler can verify this). And if it will make you feel better, personally I do agree with the author's point that Google+ is "getting on" everything. But this article, overall, is rambling and internally inconsistent, to the extent that I genuinely wasn't sure if the OP was being sarcastic by calling it "well-written".
      - rm999 13y ago
        >Or by "objective" do you actually mean the opposite You're being very snarky and assuming the worst in people's comments. Both samspenc and I meant what we said, as most people generally do. Seriously, you've been less civil than you may realize. What do I mean by objective? You downvoted a comment that is actually pretty standard/common here ("I liked this article because X"). I can only imagine you acted this way because you are biased towards the topic; it's easy to deny you aren't, but you broke downvoting protocol either way. You're contributing to the stereotype of googlers acting badly in threads about google (my comments in this thread have been downvoted, something that virtually never happens to me on hackernews).
        endtime 13y ago
        >I can only imagine you acted this way because you are biased towards the topic This is exactly what I'm objecting to. >you broke downvoting protocol either way How did I break protocol if I am not (as you claim) lying?