3 ms·

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

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."
  - unclebucknasty 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. LOL! That's truly funny, and thanks for your upvote. Yeah, it seems that someone(s) are randomly going about and downvoting my comments everywhere. They apparently have no sense of irony and are consuming their own valuable (or, apparently not-so-valuable) time hunting down a random, anonymous person's comments (mine) to (I suppose) "punish" me for some transgression known only to them. Apparently, they take themselves (along with their little mouse-clicks and my meaningless karma score) very seriously. That this is happening on a site called Hacker News (full of conformist hackers?) is even more ironic. In any case, I think all of your definitions of "mild correction" are as effective and more constructive without the downvotes, and they further encourage discussion on what is effectively a venue for exactly that. But, again, I'll also agree that the supplementary comments with the downvotes are 100% better than downvotes alone.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote. I'm not sure there is much to be gained from that, but if explanation is viewed as necessary I'd prefer a comment attached to the downvote that is hidden from the main discussion but visible on a link from the title line of the downvoted comment (with a link title like "5 downvotes"), so that downvotes don't increase the screen real-estate associated with the downvoted comment and its associated subthread in "normal" view, but the rationale for any downvotes is kept. I think requiring normal comments associated with downvotes, and thus increasing the prominence of downvoted comments, is directly contrary to the whole purpose of community moderation. But, in any case, I don't really see a problem with the impact of downvotes under the current system that warrants the increase in downvoting cost that requiring comment would involve. > Also I have a feeling some people who definitely don't understand HN culture has got downvote privilege over the last 6-18 months. I think the culture is continuously evolving (both from the ground up and from the admin side), but I don't see anything particularly surprising recently. I occasionally see a few downvotes that seem unwarranted -- either on my own comments or others where that's evident by graying -- but they tend to get neutralized by upvotes over a little time, and that's pretty much not a change from the past.
- unclebucknasty 12y ago
  The changes you propose are valid if we start with the premise that we need downvotes to begin with. But, I just don't believe they're helpful. Clearly, I'm in the minority here, but it's certainly not the first time. Anyway, given that flags are a mechanism for problematic content, you seem to be saying that some comments merit disagreement and discussion, while others should just be cast aside, though they are not "fully problematic" so as to warrant a flag. Still, they are not even deserving of "normal" comments or discussion? Why not? As a function of others expressing more rigorous disagreement? So, if I disagree then we should discuss. But, if I disagree strongly, then we should torpedo your comment altogether? These are earnest questions, because I don't get that approach in a place that is presumably aimed at thoughtful discussion. I've seen too many cases wherein someone expresses a thoughtful idea, but gets downvoted because people disagree. Look at the comment that started this little sub-thread. The commenter was downvoted without explanation and assumed it might've been because people thought his question stupid, as if that's completely cool.

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."
- unclebucknasty 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. LOL! That's truly funny, and thanks for your upvote. Yeah, it seems that someone(s) are randomly going about and downvoting my comments everywhere. They apparently have no sense of irony and are consuming their own valuable (or, apparently not-so-valuable) time hunting down a random, anonymous person's comments (mine) to (I suppose) "punish" me for some transgression known only to them. Apparently, they take themselves (along with their little mouse-clicks and my meaningless karma score) very seriously. That this is happening on a site called Hacker News (full of conformist hackers?) is even more ironic. In any case, I think all of your definitions of "mild correction" are as effective and more constructive without the downvotes, and they further encourage discussion on what is effectively a venue for exactly that. But, again, I'll also agree that the supplementary comments with the downvotes are 100% better than downvotes alone.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote. I'm not sure there is much to be gained from that, but if explanation is viewed as necessary I'd prefer a comment attached to the downvote that is hidden from the main discussion but visible on a link from the title line of the downvoted comment (with a link title like "5 downvotes"), so that downvotes don't increase the screen real-estate associated with the downvoted comment and its associated subthread in "normal" view, but the rationale for any downvotes is kept. I think requiring normal comments associated with downvotes, and thus increasing the prominence of downvoted comments, is directly contrary to the whole purpose of community moderation. But, in any case, I don't really see a problem with the impact of downvotes under the current system that warrants the increase in downvoting cost that requiring comment would involve. > Also I have a feeling some people who definitely don't understand HN culture has got downvote privilege over the last 6-18 months. I think the culture is continuously evolving (both from the ground up and from the admin side), but I don't see anything particularly surprising recently. I occasionally see a few downvotes that seem unwarranted -- either on my own comments or others where that's evident by graying -- but they tend to get neutralized by upvotes over a little time, and that's pretty much not a change from the past.

unclebucknasty 12y ago
The changes you propose are valid if we start with the premise that we need downvotes to begin with. But, I just don't believe they're helpful. Clearly, I'm in the minority here, but it's certainly not the first time. Anyway, given that flags are a mechanism for problematic content, you seem to be saying that some comments merit disagreement and discussion, while others should just be cast aside, though they are not "fully problematic" so as to warrant a flag. Still, they are not even deserving of "normal" comments or discussion? Why not? As a function of others expressing more rigorous disagreement? So, if I disagree then we should discuss. But, if I disagree strongly, then we should torpedo your comment altogether? These are earnest questions, because I don't get that approach in a place that is presumably aimed at thoughtful discussion. I've seen too many cases wherein someone expresses a thoughtful idea, but gets downvoted because people disagree. Look at the comment that started this little sub-thread. The commenter was downvoted without explanation and assumed it might've been because people thought his question stupid, as if that's completely cool.