3 ms·

> downvoting is used for not agreeing with a comment I hope downvoting has nothing to do with agreement; I thought it was for comments that aren't valuable to

> downvoting is used for not agreeing with a comment I hope downvoting has nothing to do with agreement; I thought it was for comments that aren't valuable to the conversation (e.g., not substantive, poorly reasoned, false, or poorly communicated). I want to see many more comments that are valuable and challenge the community (and challenge my thinking too). The groupthink is already well known and if not, will certainly be posted by someone. In practice, I do see downvoting used on comments that are valuable but challenging. It's disappointing. EDIT: remove embarrassing typo

baddox 12y ago
> I hope downvoting has nothing to do with a agreement; I thought it was for comments that aren't valuable to the conversation (e.g., not substantive, poorly reasoned, false, or poorly communicated). That's a weak distinction when there is a factual disagreement, since most people probably believe that factually incorrect statements are not valuable to the conversation.
- brianpan 12y ago
  You stated: most people probably believe that factually incorrect statements are not valuable to the conversation. I don't think this is true at all. I disagree that 1) this is a thing most people believe and 2) that incorrect statements are not valuable. I would hope our disagreement would cause people to refine their thinking about what they post as well as what they downvote and flag. [*] Most, referring to most HN readers
lotharbot 12y ago
pg has said many times that it's OK to downvote out of disagreement (particularly since it's OK to upvote due to agreement.) I generally don't unless the disagreement has another value-subtracting component (lack of substance, poor reasoning/phrasing, factual errors, unnecessary incivility.) For disagreeable but worthwhile comments, I prefer responding instead. But I recognize the value in having differences of opinion over the use of downvotes -- comments of marginal quality (which some people disagree with, and others don't find valuable enough to upvote even if they agree) will end up dropping down the page.
- hackuser 12y ago
  > pg has said many times that it's OK to downvote out of disagreement (particularly since it's OK to upvote due to agreement.) What value does this provide to the reader? Community groupthink is not strongly related to truth, IMHO, and provides little marginal value, because I already know what it is and it's easy to find. In fact, I wouldn't read HN if all I found was the groupthink -- I gain far more from new or challenging ideas. EDIT: When Amy up/downvotes, it is for the benefit of Bob and other readers. Amy receives little benefit besides maybe a little emotional satisfaction. If the vote mainly was for Amy's benefit, HN wouldn't need her vote to impact anyone else's threads -- we all could have personalized, independent scores for each comment. What benefit do I, Bob, receive if Amy is just voting on what she agrees/disagrees with?
  - Crito 12y ago
    Downvoting because you disagree provides the exact same benefit to the reader that upvoting because you agree provides. "Downvotes aren't for disagreeing" is an absurd redditism. > "Community groupthink is not strongly related to truth" In strongly technical discussions, which are common on HN and which HN should be optimized for, "groupthink" and "correct" tend to correlate quite nicely. Whenever there is a concrete notion of "correct", it works well. It is only when "correct" becomes subjective (such as in political discussions) that shit gets messy.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > Community groupthink is not strongly related to truth, IMHO, and provides little marginal value, because I already know what it is and it's easy to find. In other words, downvote and upvote according to what you think those actions mean.
- kolev 12y ago
  So, users with high karma are just populists? And since when hackers are populists? Not agreeing with somebody could be highly subjective.
  - scrollaway 12y ago
splintercell 12y ago
Reddit/HN create one interaction with the comment(upvote/downvote) and then expect that they must use this button to make the post more prominent or less prominent, even though the most strong emotional reaction is agreeing/disagreeing. Its like you invite people to a debate, where you say "please only boo when someone is saying something obscene and nasty or breaking the rules of the debate, not when they are saying something you disagree with".
vacri 12y ago
Downvoting for mere disagreement has been blessed by the top level; it's an HN 'thing'. It would be less of a problem if it didn't also fade your comment.
- Crito 12y ago
  I rarely see well considered dissenting opinions down-voted into the gray. That is something that I typically only see when somebody is being uncivil, committing logical fallacies, mis-characterizing the arguments of others, or is factually incorrect yet self-sure.
incision 12y ago
>"I hope downvoting has nothing to do with a agreement; I thought it was for comments that aren't valuable to the conversation (e.g., not substantive, poorly reasoned, false, or poorly communicated)." I agree. Thing is, the "when to downvote" debate is ancient at this point and no closer to consensus. These days, I'm given to thinking that any voting system should assume the behavior of least resistance, that it's thoughtless, reflexive and therefore only potentially valuable after being sanitized / aggregated / weighted.

baddox 12y ago

> I hope downvoting has nothing to do with a agreement; I thought it was for comments that aren't valuable to the conversation (e.g., not substantive, poorly reasoned, false, or poorly communicated). That's a weak distinction when there is a factual disagreement, since most people probably believe that factually incorrect statements are not valuable to the conversation.

brianpan 12y ago
You stated: most people probably believe that factually incorrect statements are not valuable to the conversation. I don't think this is true at all. I disagree that 1) this is a thing most people believe and 2) that incorrect statements are not valuable. I would hope our disagreement would cause people to refine their thinking about what they post as well as what they downvote and flag. [*] Most, referring to most HN readers

lotharbot 12y ago

pg has said many times that it's OK to downvote out of disagreement (particularly since it's OK to upvote due to agreement.) I generally don't unless the disagreement has another value-subtracting component (lack of substance, poor reasoning/phrasing, factual errors, unnecessary incivility.) For disagreeable but worthwhile comments, I prefer responding instead. But I recognize the value in having differences of opinion over the use of downvotes -- comments of marginal quality (which some people disagree with, and others don't find valuable enough to upvote even if they agree) will end up dropping down the page.

hackuser 12y ago
> pg has said many times that it's OK to downvote out of disagreement (particularly since it's OK to upvote due to agreement.) What value does this provide to the reader? Community groupthink is not strongly related to truth, IMHO, and provides little marginal value, because I already know what it is and it's easy to find. In fact, I wouldn't read HN if all I found was the groupthink -- I gain far more from new or challenging ideas. EDIT: When Amy up/downvotes, it is for the benefit of Bob and other readers. Amy receives little benefit besides maybe a little emotional satisfaction. If the vote mainly was for Amy's benefit, HN wouldn't need her vote to impact anyone else's threads -- we all could have personalized, independent scores for each comment. What benefit do I, Bob, receive if Amy is just voting on what she agrees/disagrees with?
- Crito 12y ago
  Downvoting because you disagree provides the exact same benefit to the reader that upvoting because you agree provides. "Downvotes aren't for disagreeing" is an absurd redditism. > "Community groupthink is not strongly related to truth" In strongly technical discussions, which are common on HN and which HN should be optimized for, "groupthink" and "correct" tend to correlate quite nicely. Whenever there is a concrete notion of "correct", it works well. It is only when "correct" becomes subjective (such as in political discussions) that shit gets messy.
- baddox 12y ago
  > Community groupthink is not strongly related to truth, IMHO, and provides little marginal value, because I already know what it is and it's easy to find. In other words, downvote and upvote according to what you think those actions mean.
kolev 12y ago
So, users with high karma are just populists? And since when hackers are populists? Not agreeing with somebody could be highly subjective.
- scrollaway 12y ago

splintercell 12y ago

Reddit/HN create one interaction with the comment(upvote/downvote) and then expect that they must use this button to make the post more prominent or less prominent, even though the most strong emotional reaction is agreeing/disagreeing. Its like you invite people to a debate, where you say "please only boo when someone is saying something obscene and nasty or breaking the rules of the debate, not when they are saying something you disagree with".

vacri 12y ago

Downvoting for mere disagreement has been blessed by the top level; it's an HN 'thing'. It would be less of a problem if it didn't also fade your comment.

Crito 12y ago
I rarely see well considered dissenting opinions down-voted into the gray. That is something that I typically only see when somebody is being uncivil, committing logical fallacies, mis-characterizing the arguments of others, or is factually incorrect yet self-sure.

incision 12y ago

>"I hope downvoting has nothing to do with a agreement; I thought it was for comments that aren't valuable to the conversation (e.g., not substantive, poorly reasoned, false, or poorly communicated)." I agree. Thing is, the "when to downvote" debate is ancient at this point and no closer to consensus. These days, I'm given to thinking that any voting system should assume the behavior of least resistance, that it's thoughtless, reflexive and therefore only potentially valuable after being sanitized / aggregated / weighted.