3 ms·

Well, sure. You're not going to get upvoted at all if everyone disagrees with you. But I've noted a very distressing tendency toward comments accumulating sign

by beat 12y ago

Well, sure. You're not going to get upvoted at all if everyone disagrees with you. But I've noted a very distressing tendency toward comments accumulating significant downvotes not for being wrong, but for being different. Hell, I just got multiple downvotes for saying you should use containers for development even if you're developing on a Linux desktop, because containers are repeatable and your desktop is not. That's kind of a duh thing, but apparently people find it offensive. That's one example, but I've seen it happen a lot, and to a lot of posters making technically correct and logically valid points.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> But I've noted a very distressing tendency toward comments accumulating significant downvotes not for being wrong, but for being different. I've noted a very distressing tendency for people on HN to assume that no one could possibly disagree with their subjective interpretation of the relevance and degree of substantive contribution of a post, and to therefore assume that downvotes of posts that the complaining poster agrees finds to be insightful must be based on differentness, not on differing subjective interpretations on relevance and degree of substantive contribution. And, further, to state the conclusion of this stack of assumptions as a simple fact.
- beat 12y ago
  So do you think disagreement alone is grounds for downvoting? Maybe I'm weird, but I'll often upvote comments I disagree with, if I think they're interesting. Downvotes as cultural reinforcement is a real problem. And it's a bad idea, imho. I've seen it in the technical community since the idea of comment voting was introduced back in the glory days of Slashdot, 17 years or so ago. It distresses me to see HN doing the same thing.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > So do you think disagreement alone is grounds for downvoting? Maybe I'm weird, but I'll often upvote comments I disagree with, if I think they're interesting. Disagreement is fairly explicitly -- i.e., per pg -- an acceptable reason for downvoting, though I don't prefer to use it that way and will often upvote posts I disagree with that I feel add value to the discussion. But that's irrelevant to my point in GP -- my point is that people to tend to present self-serving assumptions about the motivation behind downvotes of particular posts as if they were established facts. > Downvotes as cultural reinforcement is a real problem. Downvotes as cultural reinforcement is a central element of community moderation -- "cultural reinforcement" is how the particular character of a community is maintained, and "community moderation" is expressly the decision to give that reinforcement to the community. And that's just as true for downvotes-for-lack-of-substance as for downvotes-for-disagreement. Having seen both unmoderated and primarily centrally moderated communities, I think community moderation is a fairly good approach (not without its tradeoffs), and HN's form of community moderation is, IMO, one of the better ones.
    - beat 12y ago
      Yeah. As much as I knock cultural reinforcement of wrongheaded assumptions (it's no different in principle than fundie churches), community policing is better than the alternatives.

by beat 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> But I've noted a very distressing tendency toward comments accumulating significant downvotes not for being wrong, but for being different. I've noted a very distressing tendency for people on HN to assume that no one could possibly disagree with their subjective interpretation of the relevance and degree of substantive contribution of a post, and to therefore assume that downvotes of posts that the complaining poster agrees finds to be insightful must be based on differentness, not on differing subjective interpretations on relevance and degree of substantive contribution. And, further, to state the conclusion of this stack of assumptions as a simple fact.

beat 12y ago
So do you think disagreement alone is grounds for downvoting? Maybe I'm weird, but I'll often upvote comments I disagree with, if I think they're interesting. Downvotes as cultural reinforcement is a real problem. And it's a bad idea, imho. I've seen it in the technical community since the idea of comment voting was introduced back in the glory days of Slashdot, 17 years or so ago. It distresses me to see HN doing the same thing.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > So do you think disagreement alone is grounds for downvoting? Maybe I'm weird, but I'll often upvote comments I disagree with, if I think they're interesting. Disagreement is fairly explicitly -- i.e., per pg -- an acceptable reason for downvoting, though I don't prefer to use it that way and will often upvote posts I disagree with that I feel add value to the discussion. But that's irrelevant to my point in GP -- my point is that people to tend to present self-serving assumptions about the motivation behind downvotes of particular posts as if they were established facts. > Downvotes as cultural reinforcement is a real problem. Downvotes as cultural reinforcement is a central element of community moderation -- "cultural reinforcement" is how the particular character of a community is maintained, and "community moderation" is expressly the decision to give that reinforcement to the community. And that's just as true for downvotes-for-lack-of-substance as for downvotes-for-disagreement. Having seen both unmoderated and primarily centrally moderated communities, I think community moderation is a fairly good approach (not without its tradeoffs), and HN's form of community moderation is, IMO, one of the better ones.
  - beat 12y ago
    Yeah. As much as I knock cultural reinforcement of wrongheaded assumptions (it's no different in principle than fundie churches), community policing is better than the alternatives.