5 ms·
Why the need to explicitly police the discussion? Doesn't HN's system of up-and-down votes already accomplish that?
by muglug 12y ago
Why the need to explicitly police the discussion? Doesn't HN's system of up-and-down votes already accomplish that?
- ufo 12y agoDownvotes are pointless if peopoe don't agree on what they should be downvoting. For example, contrast r/askscience with r/funny
- thrillgore 12y agoAllowing a voting system does not guarantee any form of quality control, especially when the content of the article is very controversial, if not intended to insight differing opinions.
- wambotron 12y agoI still don't see downvotes. I don't really post or comment very often, but I've been reading this site almost daily for years. Maybe they could work that in to an algorithm that gives you the downvote option.. My point is that there are many, many people who are just readers (of posts and comments) who don't feel the need to comment on everything but are perfectly capable of helping police the content. Right now, I can only upvote if I like something. There is no other option for "this is not good/helpful"
- steveklabnik 12y ago> Maybe they could work that in to an algorithm that gives you the downvote option.. There is, actually. You need 500 karma, and you don't have that yet.
- wambotron 12y agoI think you misunderstood me. I meant the age of your account + your recent activity (as in, visits to the page) would account for something in the formula.
- tptacek 12y agoNo, HN's system of up-and-down votes do not accomplish that at all. About the best you can say for them is that they send obviously, overtly malicious comments to the bottoms of threads; they do little to combat insidiously malicious comments.