5 ms·

well said I basically stopped commenting (well, except now -- doh) here on HN because of how frequently I saw toxic responses and punishment down-voting. There

well said I basically stopped commenting (well, except now -- doh) here on HN because of how frequently I saw toxic responses and punishment down-voting. There are a noisy subset of users here who either (a) can't understand or respect generalizations, especially based on older/real-life experience, or (b) demand "proof" for any claim, or (c) will punish any kind of not-narrowly-PC statement. And then the blatantly rude. Folks who say something in a comment they'd never dare to say to your face. Therefore I've given up on caring and now much prefer Reddit's community. Less pinheads there, greater topic variety, greater sense of fun, can collapse threads, can delete comments much later (if you discover one that attracts a hate mob). I still enjoy reading HN, mostly the off-site articles linked to. But not so much the comment threads here. Not anymore.

latchkey 11y ago
What if you could see who downvoted you? I'd be less annoyed by a downvote from pg, because I probably deserved it, than a downvote from someone completely random, who I might not care about. In some ways, I also wish downvoting cost you a point like it does on stackoverflow.
- fr0styMatt2 11y ago
  I don't think the upvote/downvote system here provides enough feedback to the person being voted. There just isn't the information there. For the longest time I was confused at seeing down-voted comments because I mentally assumed that downvotes mean "this is a troll comment / this is some kind of abusive comment". Not so. Also (and I've said this before so apologies for repeating myself!), if downvotes do mean 'disagreement', could we get rid of the graying out of down-voted comments, or maybe just make it an account preference? I'm interested in reading viewpoints that I might not agree with and graying out the comment makes it really hard to do so. It also seems to fit better with the model of "downvote = this comment shouldn't be in the conversation".
  - jorgearturo 11y ago
    I agree with you.IMHO, graying out text is a way to convey censorship. Allowing each individual to configure his HN experience sounds positive to me. I like reading controversial opinions just like you. For me, it's both a way to challenge my worldview and a way to understand a particular community better.
    - kaybe 11y ago
      This has been discussed before (well, the general configuration for users). The main argument against it was that not having a common experience in the core elements makes it very hard for the community to stay coherent (which is given as desirable) and have good discussions. Eg when I don't know how you perceive the comments in the vicinity of the discussion, it is harder for me to understand your comment's intentions and finer points. Of course this doesn't apply to peripherical features such as the colour of the header bar.
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    From what I understand, upvotes signify "this adds to the conversation" and downvotes signify "this subtracts from the conversation" -- it's a stronger sentiment than disagreement, but weaker than trolling or abuse (which is what flags are for.) If a comment is disagreeable but worthwhile, my preference is to give a substantive response. If a comment is value-subtracting, even if I agree with the sentiment, I'll downvote it (and may take the time to explain the downvote if I think my explanation will be helpful.) The main attributes I consider to make a comment value-subtracting are: - substantial factual errors (not just a nitpick, but core to the point) - gratuitous negativity or unnecessary incivility - waste of space ("me too", memes or jokes except if they're edw519 caliber, excessive references to irrelevant topics such as mentioning someone else's religion several times in a thread that has nothing to do with that) - extremely poor reasoning or communication, to the degree that trying to engage substantively becomes difficult
    - jorgearturo 11y ago
      Well then, it seems to me that you have a very healthy approach to votes and flags. It should be common sense but I suspect not everyone with the ability to downvote has such considerations and the HN guidelines¹ offer very little comment on that. I'm guessing that mods think that once you've risen above the downvote reputation threshold you must be qualified and should have a good criteria on how to use this newly given privilege. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to do their job, but maybe it would be useful to add some guidelines for that too (Voting, specifically), I think I like your guidelines. ¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jorgearturo 11y ago
  >> I'd be less annoyed by a downvote from pg, because I probably deserved it, than a downvote from someone completely random, who I might not care about. I admire PGs work too, but don't you think this criteria would introduce to the community a herd-like mindset of following perceived moral leaders instead of evaluating ideas for their own standing?
  - latchkey 11y ago
    Sorry, I don't understand the relationship you're trying to make between votes and mindset. If someone important likes what I said, I'm going to think that I made a good comment. If they dislike it, then I'm going to reconsider what I said a bit more deeply. Neither of these would change my mindset from a simple up/down vote. I'd want a comment or discussion to take place first.
    - jorgearturo 11y ago
      I find many things troubling in your statement, I'll explain myself as constructively as possible without sacrificing pragmatism (I hope all the following doesn't come as condescending, I'm just trying to help here). 1st of all. This is not facebook. Upvotes and downvotes are not likes/dislikes. That said, here's another way to explain what I meant: Commenting is not about pleasing readers (is also not about displeasing, so be kind, like the post recommends). If "someone important" likes or dislikes what you said, should not have such an impact that would make you consider changing your mind, your mind should be changed by feedback in the form of comprehensive information, that kind of feedback is much more meaningful than someone else's emotion (or even disagreement by itself without feedback provided). There can be many reason/motives to upvote/downvote, but emotion is not reason, acting on emotion alone is just compulsive. I don't think PG would ever downvote you if he dislikes what you said, I'd like to think he's more sophisticated than that; he would either have an interest (motive) on muting the info you introduce to the conversation (but that's sketchy), or even better he would provide feedback (reason) on why he disagrees with you. (But I have absolutely no idea on how would PG make decisions, I'm just being rhetorical here and using PG as an example of "someone important") So my point is: You should not make comments expecting PGs approval (or any other figure you consider "someone important", which is what I stated as a "perceived moral leader"), because that's the very definition of a "herd-like mindset of following perceived moral leaders", if HN introduces tools that allow that mindset, the community's value will suffer. Being inspired by leaders is cool, but allowing them to make your mind just by liking or disliking what you said is very dangerous (and immature). You should participate in a conversation with confidence, and to obtain confidence you need to be well informed and prepared to test your ideas. EDIT: Rephrased a few things, but didn't change substance I hope.
- MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
  Seeing who downvoted you sounds like a good idea. Spending karma to downvote however - I see your point, but trolls or noise still needs to be punished, not sure people would still do that enough. I don't agree with your "argument from authority" though - even pg can be wrong sometimes...
jorgearturo 11y ago
I'm against trigger-happy flagging/downvoters too. On the other hand, I actually like the fact that Reddit's and HN's communities are different in that way. I go to Reddit when I'm hungry for lots of information and want to have a good time, also to get in touch with a broader internet community. I come to HN when I want to know what's making an impact, and that means -among MANY other things- surviving criticism. So I would not complain because HN needs criticism. I'd rather suggest a technical solution through UX design, for the false alarm flagging mostly.
- mkramlich 11y ago
  agreed: differences and variety are good
ryandrake 11y ago
A subset of your (a) that I see here a lot is when I write a 500 word essay arguing some point, and the first reply comes in and says something to the effect of: "On word 348, you said 'all'. Here's a counter-example that proves that you should have said 'some' instead! I found the word that is wrong in your statement! See? Your entire argument is invalid!" Nit-picking and pedantry is toxic in real life and on message boards, however it seems to be ever-present in communication with fellow software engineers. In software engineering, if you miss an = sign or misplace a { or use a single wrong keyword in a 100K line program, the program can fail spectacularly. Debugging a broken program often involves nit-picking syntax--it's an essential tool in a software engineer's arsenal. This is not universally true for written argument or rhetoric. Being clear is good. Using correct grammar is good. The details count. But attacking a clear, articulate argument by nit-picking grammar or word usage is pointless and does not substantially add to the conversation. Despite this, this behavior seems to exist as a cancer everywhere on the Internet where you encounter written argument or persuasion, including here.
- mkramlich 11y ago
  Great nuance and insight! That feels like part of it. When I'm wearing the Software Engineer hat, yes, the entire world can fail if a single nit is imperfect. But when we wear the Human Conversing or Persuading hat I expect and indeed enjoy seeing and using a more fuzzy logic. I expect more buffer and assume-I'm-not-an-idiot-kid-please-get-off-my-lawn-been-there-done-that-have-the-tee-shirt-thanks. Compilers and CPUs are the world's most productive utter idiots. The best engineers adjust their thoughts to see them and emulate them, but sometimes this backfires when they forget to exit that mode.
  - jorgearturo 11y ago
    Unfortunately, I don't think "aha!-you're-not-exactly-right" kind of people are going away anytime soon, they've been around on the net since I first laid mouse on it (the 90s, I'm not that old) and they've conquered the technical forums for a reason. Some people simply have that sort of mindset, one just needs to wear the "deal with it" hat and get over it. In fact, those people are very useful and most of them have helped me from time to time, so I'm grateful for them. Side note: >> assume-I'm-not-an-idiot-kid-please-get-off-my-lawn-been-there-done-that-have-the-tee-shirt-thanks Thank you for that, I'll use it sometime, not sure why or when, but it's so funny I must! :D

latchkey 11y ago

What if you could see who downvoted you? I'd be less annoyed by a downvote from pg, because I probably deserved it, than a downvote from someone completely random, who I might not care about. In some ways, I also wish downvoting cost you a point like it does on stackoverflow.

fr0styMatt2 11y ago
I don't think the upvote/downvote system here provides enough feedback to the person being voted. There just isn't the information there. For the longest time I was confused at seeing down-voted comments because I mentally assumed that downvotes mean "this is a troll comment / this is some kind of abusive comment". Not so. Also (and I've said this before so apologies for repeating myself!), if downvotes do mean 'disagreement', could we get rid of the graying out of down-voted comments, or maybe just make it an account preference? I'm interested in reading viewpoints that I might not agree with and graying out the comment makes it really hard to do so. It also seems to fit better with the model of "downvote = this comment shouldn't be in the conversation".
- jorgearturo 11y ago
  I agree with you.IMHO, graying out text is a way to convey censorship. Allowing each individual to configure his HN experience sounds positive to me. I like reading controversial opinions just like you. For me, it's both a way to challenge my worldview and a way to understand a particular community better.
  - kaybe 11y ago
    This has been discussed before (well, the general configuration for users). The main argument against it was that not having a common experience in the core elements makes it very hard for the community to stay coherent (which is given as desirable) and have good discussions. Eg when I don't know how you perceive the comments in the vicinity of the discussion, it is harder for me to understand your comment's intentions and finer points. Of course this doesn't apply to peripherical features such as the colour of the header bar.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  From what I understand, upvotes signify "this adds to the conversation" and downvotes signify "this subtracts from the conversation" -- it's a stronger sentiment than disagreement, but weaker than trolling or abuse (which is what flags are for.) If a comment is disagreeable but worthwhile, my preference is to give a substantive response. If a comment is value-subtracting, even if I agree with the sentiment, I'll downvote it (and may take the time to explain the downvote if I think my explanation will be helpful.) The main attributes I consider to make a comment value-subtracting are: - substantial factual errors (not just a nitpick, but core to the point) - gratuitous negativity or unnecessary incivility - waste of space ("me too", memes or jokes except if they're edw519 caliber, excessive references to irrelevant topics such as mentioning someone else's religion several times in a thread that has nothing to do with that) - extremely poor reasoning or communication, to the degree that trying to engage substantively becomes difficult
  - jorgearturo 11y ago
    Well then, it seems to me that you have a very healthy approach to votes and flags. It should be common sense but I suspect not everyone with the ability to downvote has such considerations and the HN guidelines¹ offer very little comment on that. I'm guessing that mods think that once you've risen above the downvote reputation threshold you must be qualified and should have a good criteria on how to use this newly given privilege. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to do their job, but maybe it would be useful to add some guidelines for that too (Voting, specifically), I think I like your guidelines. ¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jorgearturo 11y ago
>> I'd be less annoyed by a downvote from pg, because I probably deserved it, than a downvote from someone completely random, who I might not care about. I admire PGs work too, but don't you think this criteria would introduce to the community a herd-like mindset of following perceived moral leaders instead of evaluating ideas for their own standing?
- latchkey 11y ago
  Sorry, I don't understand the relationship you're trying to make between votes and mindset. If someone important likes what I said, I'm going to think that I made a good comment. If they dislike it, then I'm going to reconsider what I said a bit more deeply. Neither of these would change my mindset from a simple up/down vote. I'd want a comment or discussion to take place first.
  - jorgearturo 11y ago
    I find many things troubling in your statement, I'll explain myself as constructively as possible without sacrificing pragmatism (I hope all the following doesn't come as condescending, I'm just trying to help here). 1st of all. This is not facebook. Upvotes and downvotes are not likes/dislikes. That said, here's another way to explain what I meant: Commenting is not about pleasing readers (is also not about displeasing, so be kind, like the post recommends). If "someone important" likes or dislikes what you said, should not have such an impact that would make you consider changing your mind, your mind should be changed by feedback in the form of comprehensive information, that kind of feedback is much more meaningful than someone else's emotion (or even disagreement by itself without feedback provided). There can be many reason/motives to upvote/downvote, but emotion is not reason, acting on emotion alone is just compulsive. I don't think PG would ever downvote you if he dislikes what you said, I'd like to think he's more sophisticated than that; he would either have an interest (motive) on muting the info you introduce to the conversation (but that's sketchy), or even better he would provide feedback (reason) on why he disagrees with you. (But I have absolutely no idea on how would PG make decisions, I'm just being rhetorical here and using PG as an example of "someone important") So my point is: You should not make comments expecting PGs approval (or any other figure you consider "someone important", which is what I stated as a "perceived moral leader"), because that's the very definition of a "herd-like mindset of following perceived moral leaders", if HN introduces tools that allow that mindset, the community's value will suffer. Being inspired by leaders is cool, but allowing them to make your mind just by liking or disliking what you said is very dangerous (and immature). You should participate in a conversation with confidence, and to obtain confidence you need to be well informed and prepared to test your ideas. EDIT: Rephrased a few things, but didn't change substance I hope.
MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
Seeing who downvoted you sounds like a good idea. Spending karma to downvote however - I see your point, but trolls or noise still needs to be punished, not sure people would still do that enough. I don't agree with your "argument from authority" though - even pg can be wrong sometimes...

jorgearturo 11y ago

I'm against trigger-happy flagging/downvoters too. On the other hand, I actually like the fact that Reddit's and HN's communities are different in that way. I go to Reddit when I'm hungry for lots of information and want to have a good time, also to get in touch with a broader internet community. I come to HN when I want to know what's making an impact, and that means -among MANY other things- surviving criticism. So I would not complain because HN needs criticism. I'd rather suggest a technical solution through UX design, for the false alarm flagging mostly.

mkramlich 11y ago
agreed: differences and variety are good

ryandrake 11y ago

A subset of your (a) that I see here a lot is when I write a 500 word essay arguing some point, and the first reply comes in and says something to the effect of: "On word 348, you said 'all'. Here's a counter-example that proves that you should have said 'some' instead! I found the word that is wrong in your statement! See? Your entire argument is invalid!" Nit-picking and pedantry is toxic in real life and on message boards, however it seems to be ever-present in communication with fellow software engineers. In software engineering, if you miss an = sign or misplace a { or use a single wrong keyword in a 100K line program, the program can fail spectacularly. Debugging a broken program often involves nit-picking syntax--it's an essential tool in a software engineer's arsenal. This is not universally true for written argument or rhetoric. Being clear is good. Using correct grammar is good. The details count. But attacking a clear, articulate argument by nit-picking grammar or word usage is pointless and does not substantially add to the conversation. Despite this, this behavior seems to exist as a cancer everywhere on the Internet where you encounter written argument or persuasion, including here.

mkramlich 11y ago
Great nuance and insight! That feels like part of it. When I'm wearing the Software Engineer hat, yes, the entire world can fail if a single nit is imperfect. But when we wear the Human Conversing or Persuading hat I expect and indeed enjoy seeing and using a more fuzzy logic. I expect more buffer and assume-I'm-not-an-idiot-kid-please-get-off-my-lawn-been-there-done-that-have-the-tee-shirt-thanks. Compilers and CPUs are the world's most productive utter idiots. The best engineers adjust their thoughts to see them and emulate them, but sometimes this backfires when they forget to exit that mode.
- jorgearturo 11y ago
  Unfortunately, I don't think "aha!-you're-not-exactly-right" kind of people are going away anytime soon, they've been around on the net since I first laid mouse on it (the 90s, I'm not that old) and they've conquered the technical forums for a reason. Some people simply have that sort of mindset, one just needs to wear the "deal with it" hat and get over it. In fact, those people are very useful and most of them have helped me from time to time, so I'm grateful for them. Side note: >> assume-I'm-not-an-idiot-kid-please-get-off-my-lawn-been-there-done-that-have-the-tee-shirt-thanks Thank you for that, I'll use it sometime, not sure why or when, but it's so funny I must! :D