5 ms·

Conversely, if people could just upvote outright but to downvote would need to provide a minimum 10 character reason that was made public, would this break of i

Conversely, if people could just upvote outright but to downvote would need to provide a minimum 10 character reason that was made public, would this break of improve the system?

guelo 11y ago
So each bad comment would require a large comment thread? Seems like the opposite of what you'd want.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  It could be displayed much more compactly, or not displayed at all to third parties.
  - ibmthrowaway271 11y ago
    A way to give feedback to the poster on inconsequential details such as language/spelling/typos/grammar/etc that isn't displayed to anyone else would be useful.
QuercusMax 11y ago
You're describing something like Slashdot's moderation system, and we all know how well that worked out.
- plorkyeran 11y ago
  Pretty well?
- sukilot 11y ago
  At +5, It is the best moderation system ever published. Immune to brigades, and reader-tunable to their individual preference level for jokes and flames.
brudgers 11y ago
Sometimes the ten characters minimum I would enter would be "You're a fucking moron." Since that's probably either unproductive due to incorrectness or unproductive because the person is not in a position to do anything about it or counter-productive because nothing good can from such a comment, the downvote is much better. I can allow the button to proxy for voicing the opinion "You're a fucking moron" and move on. By extension the downvote as proxy covers lots of other cases which would add little of benefit to HN.
- madez 11y ago
  If the comment in question constituted destructive behaviour, go ahead, vote it down. Let's assume now it was not destructive. Error on the side of doubt that maybe you are wrong. If you can convince yourself with reasons that what is said is wrong, state your reasons. If you can't, don't down-vote. That you are thinking "You're a fucking moron." is a big problem it itself. You are not alone with this problem, and it haunts HN.
  - brudgers 11y ago
    On what basis have you come to believe that you are well positioned to offer reasoned advice in regard to how I, or anyone else should vote and comment on HN?
    - madez 11y ago
      I didn't offer advice but judged you. I judged you as I did to help make comments on HN suitable for having critical, rational, constructive and respectful discussions. My basement is your comment. And, being "well positioned" is not necessary for giving reasoned advice.
      - brudgers 11y ago
        It already is suitable for those things. Downvoting in lieu of wrestling pigs in mud puddles is, in my experience is one reason why. [1] Complaining about karma and its mechanisms is a dead end from both a metaphysical and literary point of view. Downvotes avoid turning disagreements into excuses to accuse other people of character flaws, as in your comments toward me. [1] Though here apparently I cannot avoid the invitation.

Conversely, if people could just upvote outright but to downvote would need to provide a minimum 10 character reason that was made public, would this break of improve the system?

guelo 11y ago

So each bad comment would require a large comment thread? Seems like the opposite of what you'd want.

Dylan16807 11y ago
It could be displayed much more compactly, or not displayed at all to third parties.
- ibmthrowaway271 11y ago
  A way to give feedback to the poster on inconsequential details such as language/spelling/typos/grammar/etc that isn't displayed to anyone else would be useful.

QuercusMax 11y ago

You're describing something like Slashdot's moderation system, and we all know how well that worked out.

plorkyeran 11y ago
Pretty well?
sukilot 11y ago
At +5, It is the best moderation system ever published. Immune to brigades, and reader-tunable to their individual preference level for jokes and flames.

brudgers 11y ago

Sometimes the ten characters minimum I would enter would be "You're a fucking moron." Since that's probably either unproductive due to incorrectness or unproductive because the person is not in a position to do anything about it or counter-productive because nothing good can from such a comment, the downvote is much better. I can allow the button to proxy for voicing the opinion "You're a fucking moron" and move on. By extension the downvote as proxy covers lots of other cases which would add little of benefit to HN.

madez 11y ago
If the comment in question constituted destructive behaviour, go ahead, vote it down. Let's assume now it was not destructive. Error on the side of doubt that maybe you are wrong. If you can convince yourself with reasons that what is said is wrong, state your reasons. If you can't, don't down-vote. That you are thinking "You're a fucking moron." is a big problem it itself. You are not alone with this problem, and it haunts HN.
- brudgers 11y ago
  On what basis have you come to believe that you are well positioned to offer reasoned advice in regard to how I, or anyone else should vote and comment on HN?
  - madez 11y ago
    I didn't offer advice but judged you. I judged you as I did to help make comments on HN suitable for having critical, rational, constructive and respectful discussions. My basement is your comment. And, being "well positioned" is not necessary for giving reasoned advice.
    - brudgers 11y ago
      It already is suitable for those things. Downvoting in lieu of wrestling pigs in mud puddles is, in my experience is one reason why. [1] Complaining about karma and its mechanisms is a dead end from both a metaphysical and literary point of view. Downvotes avoid turning disagreements into excuses to accuse other people of character flaws, as in your comments toward me. [1] Though here apparently I cannot avoid the invitation.