3 ms·

I can only assume that the 12 points you currently have are from people who agree with you. If so, that's very ironic.

by jwecker 17y ago

petercooper 17y ago
FWIW, last time I complained about this, I got downmodded to oblivion, and pg followed up saying that getting downmodded because people disagree with you is just dandy :-) So now I downmod all the time, just if I disagree with a comment as it seems to be semi-official policy.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  now I downmod all the time, just if I disagree with a comment as it seems to be semi-official policy. Here's a friendly suggestion for a slightly different policy. (I didn't vote up or down on your comment.) I upvote, first of all, whenever I see something I learn from or think that other people will learn from. I especially upvote new submissions that I think will help the hacker majority here learn about facts about the real world that aren't usually discussed in the hacker monoculture. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I especially like to upvote comments that ask follow-up questions looking for more information, especially those that take advantage of the hypertext nature of the World Wide Web to ask for links to more information to back up someone's statement about one issue or another. My downvotes indicating lack of adherence to the guidelines or bad impact on the community expand to include downvotes indicating disagreement when a) the comment to which I'm responding doesn't leave a good opportunity to be replied to by a comment, and b) the comment itself is repetitive, a mere declaration entirely unsupported by evidence, or flat-out in disregard to a more thoughtful comment that has already been posted to the thread for a while. My goal is to upvote a lot more than I downvote. (But since I don't have statistics on my own behavior as a reader of HN, I don't know if I am achieving this goal.) I see a lot of statements that I disagree with that I just let pass. Statements that I disagree with have to be actively annoying, by the criteria above, for me to downvote. And people can disagree with me factually, even proving me wrong by specific evidence, and I will upvote that if I have learned something from the comment. P.S. I wonder why there are so many more complaints about too many downvotes than about too few upvotes? I rather think that not upvoting the really good stuff here is the main problem.
  - petercooper 17y ago
    I rather think that not upvoting the really good stuff here is the main problem. I agree. Actually, I'd prefer there to be no downvotes and only upvotes. It works for the front page and doesn't lead to bad feelings or people trolling to get downvoted.

I can only assume that the 12 points you currently have are from people who agree with you. If so, that's very ironic.

by jwecker 17y ago

I can only assume that the 12 points you currently have are from people who agree with you. If so, that's very ironic.

FWIW, last time I complained about this, I got downmodded to oblivion, and pg followed up saying that getting downmodded because people disagree with you is just dandy :-) So now I downmod all the time, just if I disagree with a comment as it seems to be semi-official policy.

tokenadult 17y ago
now I downmod all the time, just if I disagree with a comment as it seems to be semi-official policy. Here's a friendly suggestion for a slightly different policy. (I didn't vote up or down on your comment.) I upvote, first of all, whenever I see something I learn from or think that other people will learn from. I especially upvote new submissions that I think will help the hacker majority here learn about facts about the real world that aren't usually discussed in the hacker monoculture. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I especially like to upvote comments that ask follow-up questions looking for more information, especially those that take advantage of the hypertext nature of the World Wide Web to ask for links to more information to back up someone's statement about one issue or another. My downvotes indicating lack of adherence to the guidelines or bad impact on the community expand to include downvotes indicating disagreement when a) the comment to which I'm responding doesn't leave a good opportunity to be replied to by a comment, and b) the comment itself is repetitive, a mere declaration entirely unsupported by evidence, or flat-out in disregard to a more thoughtful comment that has already been posted to the thread for a while. My goal is to upvote a lot more than I downvote. (But since I don't have statistics on my own behavior as a reader of HN, I don't know if I am achieving this goal.) I see a lot of statements that I disagree with that I just let pass. Statements that I disagree with have to be actively annoying, by the criteria above, for me to downvote. And people can disagree with me factually, even proving me wrong by specific evidence, and I will upvote that if I have learned something from the comment. P.S. I wonder why there are so many more complaints about too many downvotes than about too few upvotes? I rather think that not upvoting the really good stuff here is the main problem.
- petercooper 17y ago
  I rather think that not upvoting the really good stuff here is the main problem. I agree. Actually, I'd prefer there to be no downvotes and only upvotes. It works for the front page and doesn't lead to bad feelings or people trolling to get downvoted.