4 ms·

Thank you for the upvote. If the downvotes were due to religious reasons, then I have to admit it is rather sad to see them on HN. On the other hand, if they we

Thank you for the upvote. If the downvotes were due to religious reasons, then I have to admit it is rather sad to see them on HN. On the other hand, if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them. From the link and history of the cartoons, I've reached the rather odd conclusion that anyone named "Mahomet" or "Muhammad" in a cartoon is automatically assumed to be the prophet Muhammad.

unclebucknasty 12y ago
>if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them You were just asking an earnest question. What's actually stupid is the downvote feature itself. Upvotes can help promote good content and flags can call attention to inappropriate or problematic content. Likewise, comments can be used to express disagreement. So, what's the purpose of downvotes? Are we in preschool?
- corin_ 12y ago
  If users should be trusted to push comments up, then why not down also? A down vote doesn't have to mean "this comment should not be on HN", it can be "I disagree with this comment" or "I think this comment should be lower down".
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > I think this comment should be lower down You actually get two downvotes: if you think a comment should be lower down you can (but shouldn't) upvote all the other comments and downvote the one you think should be lower. Downvotes are an optimization.
    - corin_ 12y ago
      Good point - and I think while you're right in saying "but you shouldn't" there are exceptions. I've done this a couple of times, only if two users made the exact same point, one a while before another. Maybe you'd argue I shouldn't have upvoted one and downvoted another as unfair karma wise to the later poster, but my decision to do so was based on improving where the comments are positioned (readers don't need to see the same view twice high up), not based on rewarding or punishing users.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    Users do push comments down by pushing others up. If we are trying to surface interesting content, then what more do we need? And, why should your simple personal disagreement result in a comment being pushed down unless what we want is groupthink instead of earnest discussion? The proper thing to do, if one cares enough to express disagreement, is to explain why he/she disagrees. Then, there's the fact that downvotes negate one's "karma score", as if to say, "I disagree. I will take one of your gold-star stickers". It's really stupid and juvenile. But, I hope you will continue downvoting me here. The irony is just too delicious.
    - corin_ 12y ago
      I can't down vote this particular comment of yours as it is a reply to me, but wouldn't if I could. But I've no problem if others wish to. Or if they want to up vote you, also fine by me. Other than caring about other users' scores, which I don't, I see no reason a user's view of "this comment is too high" is any less valid than the opposite. And bringing in the concept of "groupthink".. Surely showing us the up vote has the exact same affect in that regard?
      - unclebucknasty 12y ago
        >And bringing in the concept of "groupthink".. Surely showing us the up vote has the exact same affect in that regard? It's not the same. Firstly, and most obviously, upvotes cannot lead to a comment being grayed out or barely legible and, thus, overlooked. Secondly, for those who do actually care about Magic Karma Beans for some reason, venturing from the herd runs the risk of earning downvotes, since they are used to express mere disagreement. If there was no risk of that "loss", then those people would be more willing to take a chance on expressing alternative or unpopular views. So, there's a downside to differing with the group sentiment and downvotes explicitly encourage people to post more when their views are in alignment with the group.
        corin_ 12y ago
        Fair point, but I'd suggest if you dislike the system it would be better to change how downvoted comments are formatted rather than prevent downvoting. The minimum karma requirement already slightly limits downvoting, perhaps it should more? To users worried about losing karma I say... grow up. I might be worried about people thinking me stupid, or something else about me, but not the number at the top right. And overall I think allowing downvotes is better than not. But this is subjective, neither of us has to be right or wrong. If you feel really strongly you could drop a mail to hn@ycombinator.com and give them reasoned argument and maybe some day they'll change more towards you're liking. I feel strongly enough to use time discussing with you, but not enough to contact HN if downvotes were disabled, personally.
- reitanqild 12y ago
  I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction, less than a flag. Not every comment here is gold to be honest. They don't need to be eliminated but they should be grey as a signal to new readers. At least that is how I view the ones I receive. As has been pointed out by many sometimes it is hard to figure out why you have been downvoted. I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote. Also I have a feeling some people who definitely don't understand HN culture has got downvote privilege over the last 6-18 months. But I don't have data for that. Comment before downvote would expose those.
  - unclebucknasty 12y ago
    >I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction Unfortunately, I just don't think people are generally that nuanced with it. But that may not be their fault, and instead may be in part due to what I mentioned previously: flags are for inappropriate content, comments should be for disagreement, so where does that leave downvoting? What is a "mild correction"? >I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote I have thought this too. I really just think downvotes are childish and counterproductive, but if there must be downvoting, then the downvoter should at least be required to provide a cogent rationale that is subject to the same public scrutiny and potential for discussion. It just seems a perverted incentive to "punish" those who take their time to contribute to the discussion, while allowing the "punisher" to remain anonymous and lazy.
    - reitanqild 12y ago
      - and, of course you received some anonymous downvotes, -have my upvote while we wait for dang and the rest of the team to come up with a good solution. As for your question: What is a "mild correction"? Here is my take on corrections in forums without private messages: 1. Polite follow up question along the lines of: "this doesn't sound right to me, do you have sources for x?"/"did you consider y?" etc - this is the least unoffensive method I know that can be applied without knowing the person you are replying to. 2. Polite explanation of why something is wrong - all while giving the poster a way out: "this is a common misconception ...". Combine with downvotes if necessary. 3. Downvote while pointing out the stupidity of the poster: "This is wrong for reasons x, y and z and you should know better. Check your facts next time." "HN has a long history of civilized discussion and this is not something I would expect to see here and I have downvoted you." "Posts like this makes you look like a tool" etc 4. Report/flag etc Also: "A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool."
- totony 12y ago
  Agreed with you. If a comment is utterly useless, it can always be flagged. Downvoting shouldn't be implemented the way it is, as it does not explain why the comment is downvoted and as it hides the comment by graying it, hiding unpopular opinions most often.

unclebucknasty 12y ago

>if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them You were just asking an earnest question. What's actually stupid is the downvote feature itself. Upvotes can help promote good content and flags can call attention to inappropriate or problematic content. Likewise, comments can be used to express disagreement. So, what's the purpose of downvotes? Are we in preschool?

corin_ 12y ago
If users should be trusted to push comments up, then why not down also? A down vote doesn't have to mean "this comment should not be on HN", it can be "I disagree with this comment" or "I think this comment should be lower down".
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > I think this comment should be lower down You actually get two downvotes: if you think a comment should be lower down you can (but shouldn't) upvote all the other comments and downvote the one you think should be lower. Downvotes are an optimization.
  - corin_ 12y ago
    Good point - and I think while you're right in saying "but you shouldn't" there are exceptions. I've done this a couple of times, only if two users made the exact same point, one a while before another. Maybe you'd argue I shouldn't have upvoted one and downvoted another as unfair karma wise to the later poster, but my decision to do so was based on improving where the comments are positioned (readers don't need to see the same view twice high up), not based on rewarding or punishing users.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  Users do push comments down by pushing others up. If we are trying to surface interesting content, then what more do we need? And, why should your simple personal disagreement result in a comment being pushed down unless what we want is groupthink instead of earnest discussion? The proper thing to do, if one cares enough to express disagreement, is to explain why he/she disagrees. Then, there's the fact that downvotes negate one's "karma score", as if to say, "I disagree. I will take one of your gold-star stickers". It's really stupid and juvenile. But, I hope you will continue downvoting me here. The irony is just too delicious.
  - corin_ 12y ago
    I can't down vote this particular comment of yours as it is a reply to me, but wouldn't if I could. But I've no problem if others wish to. Or if they want to up vote you, also fine by me. Other than caring about other users' scores, which I don't, I see no reason a user's view of "this comment is too high" is any less valid than the opposite. And bringing in the concept of "groupthink".. Surely showing us the up vote has the exact same affect in that regard?
    - unclebucknasty 12y ago
      >And bringing in the concept of "groupthink".. Surely showing us the up vote has the exact same affect in that regard? It's not the same. Firstly, and most obviously, upvotes cannot lead to a comment being grayed out or barely legible and, thus, overlooked. Secondly, for those who do actually care about Magic Karma Beans for some reason, venturing from the herd runs the risk of earning downvotes, since they are used to express mere disagreement. If there was no risk of that "loss", then those people would be more willing to take a chance on expressing alternative or unpopular views. So, there's a downside to differing with the group sentiment and downvotes explicitly encourage people to post more when their views are in alignment with the group.
      - corin_ 12y ago
        Fair point, but I'd suggest if you dislike the system it would be better to change how downvoted comments are formatted rather than prevent downvoting. The minimum karma requirement already slightly limits downvoting, perhaps it should more? To users worried about losing karma I say... grow up. I might be worried about people thinking me stupid, or something else about me, but not the number at the top right. And overall I think allowing downvotes is better than not. But this is subjective, neither of us has to be right or wrong. If you feel really strongly you could drop a mail to hn@ycombinator.com and give them reasoned argument and maybe some day they'll change more towards you're liking. I feel strongly enough to use time discussing with you, but not enough to contact HN if downvotes were disabled, personally.
reitanqild 12y ago
I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction, less than a flag. Not every comment here is gold to be honest. They don't need to be eliminated but they should be grey as a signal to new readers. At least that is how I view the ones I receive. As has been pointed out by many sometimes it is hard to figure out why you have been downvoted. I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote. Also I have a feeling some people who definitely don't understand HN culture has got downvote privilege over the last 6-18 months. But I don't have data for that. Comment before downvote would expose those.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  >I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction Unfortunately, I just don't think people are generally that nuanced with it. But that may not be their fault, and instead may be in part due to what I mentioned previously: flags are for inappropriate content, comments should be for disagreement, so where does that leave downvoting? What is a "mild correction"? >I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote I have thought this too. I really just think downvotes are childish and counterproductive, but if there must be downvoting, then the downvoter should at least be required to provide a cogent rationale that is subject to the same public scrutiny and potential for discussion. It just seems a perverted incentive to "punish" those who take their time to contribute to the discussion, while allowing the "punisher" to remain anonymous and lazy.
  - reitanqild 12y ago
    - and, of course you received some anonymous downvotes, -have my upvote while we wait for dang and the rest of the team to come up with a good solution. As for your question: What is a "mild correction"? Here is my take on corrections in forums without private messages: 1. Polite follow up question along the lines of: "this doesn't sound right to me, do you have sources for x?"/"did you consider y?" etc - this is the least unoffensive method I know that can be applied without knowing the person you are replying to. 2. Polite explanation of why something is wrong - all while giving the poster a way out: "this is a common misconception ...". Combine with downvotes if necessary. 3. Downvote while pointing out the stupidity of the poster: "This is wrong for reasons x, y and z and you should know better. Check your facts next time." "HN has a long history of civilized discussion and this is not something I would expect to see here and I have downvoted you." "Posts like this makes you look like a tool" etc 4. Report/flag etc Also: "A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool."
totony 12y ago
Agreed with you. If a comment is utterly useless, it can always be flagged. Downvoting shouldn't be implemented the way it is, as it does not explain why the comment is downvoted and as it hides the comment by graying it, hiding unpopular opinions most often.