[HN Gopher] The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it... ___________________________________________________________________ The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009) Author : yellowyacht Score : 114 points Date : 2021-04-14 18:20 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (stackoverflow.blog) (TXT) w3m dump (stackoverflow.blog) | kodah wrote: | I've been downvoted to [dead] before, though I've never gotten | mad about it. | | One trend I have noticed is that on HN you won't necessarily be | downvoted for your idea but you definitely will be downvoted for | how you present it. If you come off as vitriolic or angry, you | can expect a proportionate response. Frustration seems to be | tolerated intermittently. | TheAdamAndChe wrote: | You can definitely be downvoted for ideas here. Comments that | go significantly against the political norms of the site seem | particularly prone to this. | rocqua wrote: | Whilst that us true, I think many of these comments are | combative, argumentative, or implying more than arguing. | | I think a thoughtful and compassionate but unfavored argument | here will not be downvoted to death. | | That is a higher standard than what the accepted political | stances face. But it feels better than what is achieved in | any other place. | tremon wrote: | In my experience, it's not the idea, but how they're | presented. I rarely see a well-reasoned post downmodded. It's | usually snipes, sarcasm (my own guilty pleasure), or a poster | repeating the exact same argument multiple times without | engaging any of the counterarguments. | Oblouk wrote: | I think the content at HN is pretty good. Some other novel | approaches I have seen includes upquest.com which has voting | based on where you think the score is headed. I think (as others | have mentioned) downvoting introduces issues like for example | downvoting articles around the one article you want upvoted. | minikites wrote: | >It's pretty clear now that the broken windows theory applies to | community sites as well. The theory is that minor forms of bad | behavior encourage worse ones: that a neighborhood with lots of | graffiti and broken windows becomes one where robberies occur. I | was living in New York when Giuliani introduced the reforms that | made the broken windows theory famous, and the transformation was | miraculous. | | The success of "broken windows" policing is not supported by much | evidence, so the rest of article based on this concept is | suspect: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory#Criticis... | ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: | I have no opinion on New York and its implementation of the | theory but I think it's indeed very clear that the theory | applies to community management. | | I manage an instant messaging community of about 10000 stem | professionals and you can see negative community feedback loops | develop or die down in real time depending on how you act on | them. It's evident new members take in the vibe when they | arrive and act to reinforce good or bad trends. If you let | people make crass jokes, soon they're posting rude comments | then insulting each others. If you let people post memes about | technical topics, soon it's random tiktok videos, then it's | porn. If you let a regular member go off on a newbie who asks a | bad question, the next thing you know people are bullying | newcomers left and right. | | All I wanted was to build a nice virtual gathering spot and | meet cool people but now I have to play fascist because the | feedback effect is so strong. | vxNsr wrote: | Most of the criticism appears to come from misguided CRT roots. | Thus the criticism itself is suspect. | [deleted] | hellbannedguy wrote: | To those of you addicted to Hacker News; I can offer this tip. | | Get a Hellban. It's not hard after all. I'll probally get | hellbanned over this post? | | You will find you will still pruse HN, but very rarely will you | feel the need to contribute. Your time here will decrease. | | Hacker News does not need much improvement. It does seem like | it's on the back end of it's business cycle though, like all | current social sites? I used business cycle because I don't know | the word for a social site's decline. Decline is too harsh a | word. Maybe predictable conversations, and a bit of a echo | chamber, is more appripro? Hacker News is still the best site for | scientific conversation on the the internet though. | | It seems like we have hashed out the important scientific stuff, | and most issues computer related. | | I'm so greatfull to the hard nosed scientists whom hang here, and | take umbridge to unsupported claims. I really do appreciate you | guys. You know who you are. You are usually the first one to | comment on a study's flaw, or whether the Placebo Effect is | rearing it's magical head. | | Graham should add a few more moderators though. Never give too | much power to one person, and an owner. This Plus--if Graham pays | more Moderators, he could write off the added expence? It could | be his gift to humanity? Oh yea, block a person, but do away with | hellbanning. It's wimpy, passive aggressive, weak move. I | understand moderation, but just block a person. Don't let them | rattle on to open air. | | I would like to see a few more political discussions though. Not | a lot, but some. Maybe one every other week? Expose the political | fakers, and hypocrites. Expose the political hacks on both sides. | Track every dime both parties bring in by way of Lobbiests? | disgrunt wrote: | For those of us unaware, what is a hellban? | krapp wrote: | It's a ban designed to make it appear to the banned user that | they aren't banned. The intent is to allow them to continue | to post (so they don't make a new account and avoid the ban) | unaware that their posts are unreadable by the rest of the | community. | | It works, but it's extremely controversial. It used to be the | case that talking about it (and making banned users aware of | their status) could get you banned here, and vouching for | banned users wasn't available until relatively recently. Some | users have only discovered they were banned _years_ after the | fact. | disgrunt wrote: | > It's a ban designed to make it appear to the banned user | that they aren't banned. The intent is to allow them to | continue to post (so they don't make a new account and | avoid the ban) unaware that their posts are unreadable by | the rest of the community. | | How is that distinct from a shadowban? Or is it the same | thing? | krapp wrote: | It's the same thing. Hellban is just a less polite term | for it. | disgrunt wrote: | I've experienced a similar thing on HN. I'm calling it | the "insta throttle". I've been met with a "You're | posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." message | after posting just once. | krapp wrote: | I have that too. After four or five posts I have to wait | an hour. | | They'd probably remove it if I asked them, but I find it | helps me choose my comments more wisely, or at least make | certain the ones I know will be downvoted will be worth | it. And being forced to take a break now and then isn't | so bad. | BrandonM wrote: | _> Maybe predictable conversations, and a bit of a echo | chamber, is more appripro? [...] It seems like we have hashed | out the important scientific stuff, and most issues computer | related._ | | I think you're totally right with the first sentence I've | quoted. The second has some truth to it, but I think it's a | more personal effect than you seem to be acknowledging. | | The most common complaint of long-time forum members is that | the signal-to-noise ratio has gone down. In reality, the | signal-to-noise ratio could stay the same, but for any | individual community member, we will personally find less | signal in the noise. The discussions will inevitably become | predictable to us. | | When we first join a forum with a particular focus, we likely | have an incredibly incomplete view of the topics being | discussed, or at least that community's interpretations of | those topics (some of which might change our mind). We'll have | lots of epiphanies. We'll connect a lot of dots that we hadn't | connected before. We'll have real world experiences that we can | anchor to discussions in the forum, allowing us to bring our | life context into the forum and the forum context into our | lives. | | Over time, though, we'll be learning less and less from the | forums. The forum discourse can initially advance somewhat as | we come to useful consensus on some topics, and as the earlier | members have more life experiences. For any forum that allows | new members, the discourse is bound to hit a steady state of | much more slowly evolving discourse. In the long run, forums | likely evolve at roughly the same rate as society as whole. | | The forum still fills a very useful function for those new | starry-eyed members who have a lot to learn and much room to | grow. For them, the adventure and discourse and overall | experience is nearly as good as it was for the early forum | members. | | Meanwhile, those early members continue to grow at human rates, | not society rates. We outgrow the forums. We start to see | similar points over and over again, ones we've already argued | to death and assessed for ourselves. We've personally | experienced supporting and contradictory anecdotal evidence for | many of the forum's consensus viewpoints. The "signal" at this | point mostly comes from discussing entirely new events in the | forum's focus area. The sorts of things where you might say, "I | wonder what HN thinks about this?" | | Therein lies the rub. As we personally have discussed to death | the technical topics that drew us to HN, we almost wish to give | "the HN treatment" to broader areas, especially philosophy, | politics, and other current events. But we are not experts in | these areas. It might feel exciting to us to discuss these | things with our peers, but to anyone looking in from the | outside, we're a bunch of bumbling idiots who think we know it | all. If these topics start to dominate the conversation, the | forum is no longer interesting to newcomers. Foremost experts | in these areas have little reason to visit the forum, so any | advancing discourse is much slower than it was for the original | forum topic. | | Sorry, I'm kind of thinking out loud in this comment. I guess | my conclusion is that it's probably best to strive to keep the | forum on topic, even if it gets boring for the oldtimers. I | think it's totally fine for members to realize they've outgrown | the forum and move onto other ways of spending their remaining | time on this planet. We can take some satisfaction in the role | that we played in the forum's early growth, and we can be | grateful for the role that it played in our growth. And we can | let the next generation muddle on in our stead, experiencing | their own adventures while moving the center in their own | direction. | crazygringo wrote: | It's kind of amusing that the entire premise of this article is | undone by the aside: | | > _update: Apparently it is possible to downvote comments, which | I never realized._ | | But while downvotes seem useful for _comments_ where there 's a | lot more scope for false information, trolling, etc., I'm not | sure what the additional value would be for _posts_ -- they 're | either popular or not, and you can still flag posts that are | actively harmful. | | And then this: | | > _Is it realistic for users to expect to post in an environment | where there are no penalties at all, no way for their peers to | express disapproval or disagreement with their post?_ | | Huh? Peers express disapproval and disagreement by _commenting | within the post_. As I am doing precisely right now. ;) | | Jeff Atwood is a super-smart guy who's done amazing things but | this particular piece leaves me quite baffled. | cryptoz wrote: | I used to read Coding Horror but stopped paying attention to | Jeff Atwood after his anti-coding rant. He repeatedly insisted | that "learning to code" is a really dumb thing to do unless you | intend to make a career out of it. A really shocking opinion | that I was surprised to hear from him, and made me lose all | respect for his coding-related opinions. | disgrunt wrote: | I have no opinion of Atwood and am unfamiliar with his work. | But a single opinion/rant made you lose all respect for a | person? | | I see this sentiment a lot on HN. The fatal opinion | minefield. | phpnode wrote: | I saw something earlier today that said (inelegantly | paraphrasing) | | "developers read articles as if they themselves were a | compiler, immediately stopping as soon as they reach a | sentence they disagree with and then throwing a syntax | error" | | I think the same thing applies here | prichino wrote: | At least he has opinions. The "everyoness must code" folk | sometimes do sound like markov-generated text. Funny that you | hold his coding opinions in less respect for what is most | decidedly a not coding-related opinion. Substitute coding for | "advanced mathematics", "investment banking", "nursing". | | Would you lose respect for a professional nurse's nursing | opinions if he said learning to nurse is a really dumb thing | to do unless you intend to make a career out of it? | vcxy wrote: | Not the parent commenter, but kinda, yeah. Saying that it's | stupid to learn x if you aren't going to monetize comes off | poorly to me. So does saying that everyone should learn x. | I don't understand either view. | | Is it weird to have an interest in nursing and learn about | it but not be interested in monetizing it? Sure, it could | be. Is it dumb? No. | jacobr1 wrote: | An alternative analogy would be "learning first-aid is a | dumb thing to do unless you become a medical professional." | | I wouldn't lose respect, but it is a narrow view, and one | worthy of debate. | | "Programming" is such a powerful tool for everyone to | interact with technology and we could do a better job | exposing programatic abstractions. Think of how many people | use spreadsheets with complex expressions. Is that that not | also programming? | jokab wrote: | Upvoted :) | ergot_vacation wrote: | Belief in Downvoting seems to be an artifact of idealistic | naivete (that I used to have as well), in the same way as | enthusiastic, unquestioning belief in the writings of Ayn Rand, | Karl Marx etc (not calling anyone out, everyone was a teenager | once). Downvotes SEEM good on paper. In the real world, they're | garbage because they're never used as intended. | | Nearly every implementation of downvotes assumes they will be | used as a way for ordinary users to moderate bad content, _and | that this power will not be abused_. The reality is that we 've | known mob rule was a terrible idea since at least the | Enlightenment era, and probably much earlier. But apparently we | need to keep re-discovering it. | | There is a certain kind of person that mostly likes to attack and | destroy, in any given situation. Not for any good reason, but | simply because they like conflict. Give them a downvote, and | they'll latch on to it and destroy communities. Give them only an | upvote and they'll lose interest and go cause problems somewhere | else. | | Moderation is for moderators. Users cannot, and should not, be | trusted with it. | dang wrote: | Getting it wrong for 12 years now: | | _The Value of Downvoting, Or, How Hacker News Gets It Wrong | (2009)_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25633668 - Jan | 2021 (1 comment) | | _10 Years In, Was He Right? "Value of Downvoting; How HN Gets It | Wrong"_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23409231 - June | 2020 (1 comment) | | _The Value of Downvoting, or, How Hacker News Gets It Wrong | (2009)_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13325726 - Jan | 2017 (12 comments) | | _The Value of Downvoting or How Hacker News Gets It Wrong | (2009)_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10875619 - Jan | 2016 (36 comments) | | _Reddit 's Discussion about HN_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=508801 - March 2009 (24 | comments) | | _The Value of Downvoting, or, How Hacker News Gets It Wrong_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=507948 - March 2009 (114 | comments) | tpmx wrote: | Those are mostly out of date. Maybe stop self-celebrating past | victories, it's not very becoming. ;) | | Flagging is where HN gets it wrong, IMO. So many slightly | controversial and important topics are being removed with this | mechanism. We're left with all the vanilla stuff. | wvenable wrote: | Flagging is necessary to keep the site on-topic in my | opinion. People will happily upvote controversy that has | little value or importance to this site. | tpmx wrote: | It makes for a nice beige set of topics for sure. | dvt wrote: | It's funny you say this, because the topics on HN are | actually quite broad. If flagging weren't a thing, all | we'd be talking about is Trump this, guns that, free | speech this, trans that, racism here, racism there. Now | _that_ would be quite boring. | dmos62 wrote: | > controversy that has little value or importance to this | site | | What do you mean by "this site"? The participants in this | forum are the site. I've had discussions flagged that I | thought to be valuable. Why would you want to get rid of | controversy anyway? Do you want to discuss only popular old | hat things? Stability under diversity is a sign of health | in an ecosystem. | wvenable wrote: | Participants want to discuss politics, current events, | sports, etc. But this site is Hacker News and it is for | specific subject matter. | | If you want to discuss off-topic controversies, there's | an entire Internet full of sites to have that discussion | on. | tpmx wrote: | I've seen purely technical discussions being removed from | page 1 just because some people really wanted that stuff | to go away, and had the power to make it happen. | wvenable wrote: | Where's this technical discussion? Lets see if I agree | with you. | | Because I've seen people totally make up stuff to make a | point. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _Stability under diversity is a sign of health in an | ecosystem._ | | And yet part of that diversity is that ecosystem has | different niches :). | | You can discuss politics, sports and controversy anywhere | else on the Internet. HN has a different focus, and many | of us (myself included) would like to keep it that way - | because that's literally the basis for the whole value of | this place. | type0 wrote: | > HN has a different focus, | | This needs to be expressed more often, too bad often | people do write that but not in a friendly way and some | threads go on with countless bickering. | freedomben wrote: | I agree that flagging has value, but it is grossly misused | to suppress discussions that are on topic but are outside | of the overton window. | | Generally speaking I think HN is wonderful, and if staying | wonderful means we have to tolerate censorship, I'll gladly | make that trade, but I do wish people had thicker skin | (that's a problem on all sides by the way). | wvenable wrote: | Individual comments are rarely flagged for anything other | than outright spam or harassment. I browse with "show | dead" turned on. | | I have seen entire heated topics killed but that kills | both sides of the argument equally. What value is a | 500-comment talk-over-each-other argument, fundamentally | about politics even if on-topic, on this site? I doesn't | seem like something we should waste time on. | tpmx wrote: | The fallacy here: when you're only exposed to stuff that | everyone agrees about, you're missing out. | rocqua wrote: | I have recently found a whole lot of value in figuring | out what everybody agrees about. A lot of the time that | is right. And when it is wrong, it is good to know, and | encourages (me at least) to really figure out why the | fence is there before I remove it. | wvenable wrote: | Rarely does anyone ever comment to agree on something. | And merely being contrarian is not valuable in of itself. | | If a few things are over-moderated I _might_ be mildly | missing out. So what? Humans are fallible. There is no | perfect system. You 're not arguing that HN is _so_ | moderated that it 's completely worthless. You're not | even getting close to that. | | So what do we do about a system that isn't perfect but is | doing a pretty fine job? | type0 wrote: | > if staying wonderful means we have to tolerate | censorship, | | The rules to stay on topic is not the same as censorship. | Often I noticed people talk (write) past each other and | get into misunderstandings; it happens to me I'll admit. | dmos62 wrote: | > Flagging | | Flagging is a problem sometimes. I feel like it's common for | a comment to get flagged when someone strongly opposes it. | It's really upsetting to see that. Especially since it feels | like the flaggers are a small minority, but they're shutting | down discussions for everyone. | [deleted] | jonnycomputer wrote: | It is still wrong. But even brilliant | people/groups/institutions can get it stubbornly wrong. Let us | say that HN thrives despite the disutility of the downvoting | regime. | minimaxir wrote: | It's worth noting that 2009 was a _eon_ ago in internet time. | Almost nothing from that era is applicable to social media | behavior in 2021. _Especially_ Hacker News, which IMO was much | more elitist /hostile at that time and fortunately has improved | in that aspect over the years. | pessimizer wrote: | Seemed friendly enough in 2010. There was a lot less news | cycle discussion and more tech (but less product) discussion, | so that might have been alienating. Also a lot more YC | specific stuff, so maybe that felt elitist. | [deleted] | klyrs wrote: | The value of downvoting, or how Stackexchange gets it wrong | about HN's voting system. | | It's hilarious that they start with some misconceptions about | downvoting, notice that they're wrong, and forge boldly ahead | without updating their understanding. | | If my hottest takes are any indication, the reputation floor -4 | for a comment, not zero as they suggest. I haven't noticed a | ceiling on upvotes. Upvotes help stories rise to the top, but | _conversation_ keeps them there. Why downvote a story that isn | 't interesting? Just don't comment and it will go away soon. | Flagging is for problematic stories. | | What I love about HN is that, unlike Reddit and SE, is that | discussion is the major feature. The moderation system is | tailored around facilitating that. Contrast that to other | sites, reputation is the game, and content revolves around the | people playing that game. | | 12 years later, SE is still getting it wrong. Not just in their | understanding of HN's downvotes, not just in their | understanding of HN's purpose, but they're still a reputation | game and the quality of the site suffers for it. | Buttons840 wrote: | As far as reputation goes, I see little difference between HN | and Reddit. Why do you think HN does it right and Reddit | wrong? | | SE prominently displays reputation points, which is | different. | rocqua wrote: | In reddit, karma is much more prominent than upvotes on | hackernews. At least as far as I am aware. | | Though I doubt redditors reddit just for the karma. | klyrs wrote: | Reddit shows up/down totals on users, comments, and | stories. It's really in your face. HN has a subtle little | arrow or two, and you only see the sum of up/down on your | own comments. We know when things have been downvoted, but | it's much harder to tell if something has been upvoted. And | when things do get downvoted, they're grayed out -- it | takes more effort to read downvoted comments (click the | date), so if you're skimming you'll just skip unpopular | comments until it gets relevant again. So display-wise, I | like the cleaner HN over the noisier and visibly gamified | Reddit. | | Also, not insignificantly, HN is a side project, not a | startup. It can succeed at its goals and stay small, not | worrying about "capturing the market" or whatever. Staying | small means dang can generally be expected to read most of | the comments on the site. | | And by "small", I mean that there's rarely much action on | the page-3 stories. Threads that get paginated are rarely | worth wading into. If a million people started using HN, | then it would quickly become so unusable that they'd all | quit within a week. Reddit "solves" this "problem" by | making subreddits, and now it's a poison-breathing hydra. | type0 wrote: | Not sure about reddit but here the reputation doesn't | really mean anything, please downvote this comment as you | please and I will prove my point :-) | oceliker wrote: | > the reputation floor -4 for a comment, not zero as they | suggest | | Correct, -4 is the lowest a comment can go: | https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented | type0 wrote: | Do title submissions also start at -4? I noticed that there | is often almost a hard line where article submission gets | much more visibility if it goes over 4 points. | chalcolithic wrote: | I always assumed SE got voting right because why else are | they the top dog? I never felt any need for them to exist | because programming forums (or usenet groups earlier) exised | since forever and once Google give us usable search(sorry, | Altavista) I could find an answer for basically any question. | klyrs wrote: | > why else are they the top dog? | | They've got really good SEO game, and answers to most of my | newbie questions when I'm learning a new language. But I | tried contributing to the site for a little while... nope, | it's wickedly political for all the wrong reasons and I | quit before long. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | I think SE has terrible voting. Voting fundamentally | doesn't work for what they're trying to do, because if you | want wiki-style best-of answers to specific questions you | cannot use a simple counting algorithm. | | For one, answers change over time. The best answer five | years ago will have accumulated the most votes. The _most | current and correct_ answer will never be able to catch up | with that. | | Two, there's a lot of nitpicking and irrelevant point | scoring. Making answers a competition instead of a | collaboration brings out the worst in some people. | | Three, there's an assumption that voters know what the best | answer is. Because they often don't - which is why they're | looking for answers - the answers with the most upvotes are | the ones that _look plausible._ They 're not necessarily | definitive, or ideal. | | Four - for code - the code sometimes has obvious bugs or | typos. Upvotes are supposed to fix this, but clearly they | don't. | | Five - the mod problem, where valid questions are closed | and duplicates aren't really duplicates. | | I think SE would work better as a collaborative semi-wiki, | or something else in that ballpark. I don't think the karma | scoring does a good job - except in the very basic sense | that you get some relevant answers in one place, and it's | still up to you to decide which one (if any) solves the | problem. | type0 wrote: | > I don't think the karma scoring does a good job | | They introduced it to gamify the whole charade without | any deeper thought. At the beginning they had a lot of | people addicted to answering questions and displaying | their points on blogs which to me always looked | ridiculous. | Tenoke wrote: | > Flagging is for problematic stories. | | If you follow at all which stories are rejected flagging is | used as downvoting on a daily basis unless your definition of | 'problematic' is extremely broad. | amznthrwaway wrote: | The notion that HN is well-moderated is bizarre. HN is | exceptionally hostile to those who hold beliefs contrary to | HN-acceptable norms. | | If you want to get banned quickly, criticize pg portfolio | companies (even politely, with valid criticism), point out | that white supremacist and other hate speech is welcomed so | long as it is polite; point out that responses to hate | speech are _not_ tolerated..... | | The community here used to be absolutely amazing. 10-15 | years ago the discussions here were actionable, and I was | able to make valuable professional connections in the the | comments. | | These days, that doesn't happen. The discussions are lower | value, less open minded, and more strident. It's a pile of | shit. | | And candidly, that's why I'm logged into a banned account | to post this. Uncomfortable truths can't be posted from | IPs/cookies/users that you want to preserve. Daniel Gackle | will ban your ass if you point out, for example, that he | tolerates and even welcomes extremely bigoted shit. | krapp wrote: | >point out that white supremacist and other hate speech | is welcomed so long as it is polite; point out that | responses to hate speech are _not_ tolerated..... | | To be fair, much of the overtly racist and bigoted | content I've seen lately has gotten voted down and | flagged, and I've seen Dan step in and stand against it | on a few occasions. I don't know if this is the result of | a shift in my perceptions or in the community, but to me | it seems like things were far worse a few years ago, and | now at least a few of the notorious bad accounts have | been banned. It's certainly not a paradise, God knows any | time race, religion or gender comes up this place often | winds up validating its execrable reputation, but I do | think the mods are trying. It's not their fault the tech | community is being taken over by incels and neo- | reactionary fascists. | [deleted] | snowflake_ptr wrote: | Given your claims of "white supremacist and other hate | speech is welcomed [...] extremely bigoted shit" being | both _completely_ inconsistent with my experience, _and_ | the specific things that you are claiming are present, it | seems far more likely that you 've been banned for the | kinds of social authoritarianism (trying to control the | speech and thoughts of others) that is particularly | popular among a certain political faction lately than | those things actually being prevalent and accepted. | pessimizer wrote: | You're going to get downvoted and flagged to hell, but I | mostly agree with your comment - there was a precipitous | quality drop that came with the heavy moderation that | people now think of as the identifying characteristic of | HN. That being said, I think that after a few egregious | missteps (such as the test ban on "politics"), the heavy | moderation has been open and kind. I also suspect that | there has been some mod meddling to keep my lefty-ass | comments visible more than once. | | I would like to point out that this is a silicon | valley/SF tech forum; considering the demo, to mod out | all of the vile sexist/race-realist objectivist bleating | would be crushing. Just argue back. The left-liberal | addiction to manager-calling is ruining their ability to | defend their positions, heavily moderated "safe spaces" | really become places where people can repeat their | beliefs by rote, free from challenges. The reason | libertarians are wrong is because their philosophy is | intellectually bankrupt, not because it's upsetting. | Practice in putting them down refines your own beliefs. | ryandrake wrote: | > These days, that doesn't happen. The discussions are | lower value, less open minded, and more strident. It's a | pile of shit. | | The decline of open-mindedness is what I've noticed the | most. The assumption of good intention on the part of | someone with an opposing view. The willingness to at | least entertain a thought or argument, even if you | ultimately don't accept it. Much easier to just hit the | down-arrow and move on, satisfied in knowing that | wrongthink was punished with a nice -1. | | There are definitely points of view here, no matter how | well articulated, that will be buried in low-contrast | purgatory very quickly. And I'm not just talking about | "white supremacy" type stuff. | rocqua wrote: | I think that decline of willingness happened in society | at large. It's simply now reaching hackernews. There is | very little that can be done to fix this at the level of | HN. It will probably require a shift in broader society. | pessimizer wrote: | > Much easier to just hit the down-arrow and move on, | satisfied in knowing that wrongthink was punished with a | nice -1. | | This is good, do this. The worst thing in threads IMO is | endless subthreads attached to low-effort troll comments. | Just downvote and move on. If the comment contains a | factual misstatement, maybe post a quick note saying why | it is incorrect, with a reference. | type0 wrote: | > The willingness to at least entertain a thought or | argument, even if you ultimately don't accept it. Much | easier to just hit the down-arrow and move on, satisfied | in knowing that wrongthink was punished with a nice -1. | | Yes, but at least unpleasant discussions usually just | stop at that, unlike Reddit or even worse Twitter where | you get a shitstorm of insults. | fouric wrote: | > Daniel Gackle will ban your ass if you point out, for | example, that he tolerates and even welcomes extremely | bigoted shit. | | Citation needed - this claim is very far from my own | experience. If you think you'll be banned, then email me | with your evidence and I'll look at it. | Debug_Overload wrote: | I'm not sure about the companies but pg's stuff regularly | gets criticized on here (even harshly sometimes, I | think). Just a few days ago, there was one such story | (highly upvoted) on the front page in response to one of | pg's essays. | baryphonic wrote: | > If you want to get banned quickly, criticize pg | portfolio companies (even politely, with valid | criticism), point out that white supremacist and other | hate speech is welcomed so long as it is polite; point | out that responses to hate speech are _not_ | tolerated..... > > The community here used to be | absolutely amazing. 10-15 years ago the discussions here | were actionable, and I was able to make valuable | professional connections in the the comments. > > These | days, that doesn't happen. The discussions are lower | value, less open minded, and more strident. It's a pile | of shit. > > And candidly, that's why I'm logged into a | banned account to post this. Uncomfortable truths can't | be posted from IPs/cookies/users that you want to | preserve. Daniel Gackle will ban your ass if you point | out, for example, that he tolerates and even welcomes | extremely bigoted shit. | | This entire comment is one of the most closed-minded, | "lower value" comments I've seen on HN recently. | | Complaining about how comments aren't open-minded, and | also that "hate speech" and "bigoted shit" is the norm is | something of a contradiction. If one is open-minded, he | should be tolerant even of "hate speech." He should also | be open to the ideas that hate speech is both very real | or not real at all. Censoriousness is inextricably | closed-minded. | | I can't speak to PG portfolio criticism, but I think dang | does yeoman's work in moderation. Only once have I seen a | decision that I thought was harsh, and I think everyone | is entitled to a bad day every now and then. | | If you walked into my house and started berating and | insulting me, I'd probably have a dim view of you, too. | | Also, how are you posting from a banned account? That | seems to go against the nature of being banned. | cassepipe wrote: | Hate speech is a priori not very reasonable so getting | rid of it is not a matter a censorship but of getting rid | of what stand in the way of thoughtful discussions. | | Also I don't think "in my house" metaphor has had much | success. Which seems fair : Hacker News is not PG's | house, although it is his baby, he handed moderation | power over to the users, the algorithm and the | moderators. Which is why we like it and trust it and use | it. You can't just compare anything to one on one | relationships, it does not work like that. | vict7 wrote: | As someone that just stopped lurking, it's clear | downvoting is used primarily as a "disagree" button. Case | in point, this comment I'm replying to. I believe they're | making a meaningful contribution to this discussion. Yet | the downvotes have already commenced. | cassepipe wrote: | No the problem is that he makes accusations that are not | backed up by any data and this is contrary to the | guidelines. | | I consider myself more of a leftist than your typical hn | user and when I have been abnormally downvoted I never | felt it was because of my opinion but rather because I | was too hot headed or too ignorant about what I was | talking about. | | So I am very concerned by those claims but without any | data about presumed tolerance to bigotry stuff, they are | of no value too anyone. Anybody could feel sore and angry | about how some social online gathering is not as X as he | wish he was. Heck, that's my life on Reddit. Gimme data, | gimme sources, I'll vote you up. | vict7 wrote: | I can definitely confess to being hot headed at times. I | agree with you about the lack of data and will do my best | to consider this going forward. | kodah wrote: | Take a look at GP's previous comments and their contexts. | klyrs wrote: | The person you're replying to is shadowbanned, and their | post actually got vouched for, but still (I think) starts | off at a deficit. | | Looking at your comment history, it looks like you enjoy | wading into political conversations with strongly-held | opinions. Food for thought, I'd have downvoted some of | your comments that I _agree with_ because they bring down | the quality of the conversation. | vict7 wrote: | Hey I truly appreciate the honesty! I can't easily assess | the exact reason why I got downvotes without comments | like this. Thanks for filling me in! | II2II wrote: | I have come across flagged stories that looked like they | would form the basis of an interesting conversation, | noticed a string of problematic comments on the story, and | agreed with the story being flagged. | | Sometimes the problem isn't with the story or disagreeable | opinions. Rather, it is with the tone of responses. | Tenoke wrote: | Sometimes that's the case but frequently stories start | getting flagged as soon as they reach the front page | before anyone has even commented on them. | amznthrwaway wrote: | The moderation is tailored to facilitate very specific types | of discussion, and for specifically allowable opinions to be | expressed. | | My posting history started with me operating in very good | faith, getting [dead] for politely expressing opinions that | weren't acceptable, and now I just occasionally post pre-dead | posts here, knowing that few will even see them. | | It's my small way of reminding users who actually look at | everything that this place is an extremely authoritarian | place that is meant to only showcase certain things; and it | is purposefully unwelcoming to others. | rozab wrote: | It's gross how in the Reddit redesign comment threads longer | than a couple levels deep are actually hidden, even if | there's only a single thread on the post. Apparently deep | discussion is something they now want to discourage. | TigeriusKirk wrote: | >Getting it wrong for 12 years now | | What do you think HN does get wrong? | | Phrasing it in a more positive way, what could you do to raise | the quality of conversation on HN even higher? | austincheney wrote: | HN definitely moves in the proper direction on this one. The | _ONLY_ purpose of down votes is to suppress conversation. If, | contrarily, a user wished to provide a form of disagreement | they would do so with a reply. Why? Because votes are a means | of action to express an appeal to agreement /disagreement. | | I remember pointing this out once on Reddit, before I deleted | my account there, and it temporarily changed peoples' behavior | resulting in more replies to disagreeable comments in either | r/javascript or r/programming (I don't remember which). Most of | the justifications that arose from down voting without a reply, | supposedly a silent and anonymous form of disagreement, all | summarized down to excuses about how writing anything takes too | much time or a user's an inability to write an original | comment. But then, in those users defense, Reddit feels like | such an echo chamber. | | https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-... | minimaxir wrote: | > The ONLY purpose of down votes is to suppress conversation. | | This assumes all conversation is equal quality. That | particular point has never been true in social media, and has | actually become worse post-2016, with increased partisanship | and bad faith arguing. | | It's impossible to run a high-quality discussion forum | without _some_ sort of check on bad behavior. That said, it | 's up for debate whether downvotes are the best answer to | this problem. | austincheney wrote: | First, your point implies down votes are a check on bad | behavior as opposed to a form of disagreement. I suspect | many users use social media voting for a variety of | different reasons. | | Secondly, there are two solutions to that problem: | | 1. If you believe the environment, group, or social body of | a particular conversing venue is heavily biased, whether | deliberate or not, you don't have to participate there. | Simply leave. | | 2. If you believe a particular user is deliberately | exercising some form of bad behavior or displays an | inability to follow the conversation you don't have to | reply to them. Simply let it die. | | For example: whether or not I ever liked or voted for | President Trump I would never spend time on Reddit at | r/theDonald because I know conversation there is biased | like a form of cult worship. Why bother conversing where | you are not allowed to disagree on any matter? | tediousdemise wrote: | I'm a huge fan of no downvote button, so much so in fact that I | don't think users of any karma level should be able to do it. | | Why concentrate this power into the hands of a privileged few? | It's a representative system where we vote certain users into | high karma, but they needn't return any favors and can | subsequently downvote things that are otherwise suitable for | the platform. Privilege can, and will, be abused in full. | josephg wrote: | I feel like downvoting on HN is a way of saying "No. We don't | behave like that here". It's one of our community's tools for | preserving, teaching and enforcing our values with newcomers. | Yes, it's open to abuse. But it fills an important social | function. And from that perspective, of course it's limited | to people who've been involved in the community awhile. | hanniabu wrote: | Personally I also use it for comments that are so absurd | that they don't warrant a comment. | jonnycomputer wrote: | Most people just use it to signal disagreement. I just did | so now. | josephg wrote: | Don't use downvotes to signal disagreement. It goes | against the implicit and explicit guidelines of HN. And | it drags HN closer to reddit. | | Even if you see other people using downvotes for | disagreement, that doesn't make it ok for you to do the | same. | | Downvotes are for when people violate the norms and | values of our community without thoughtfulness or self | awareness. | | The difference is subtle sometimes, but your comment is | exactly the kind of thing I downvote. Low effort, | dismissal / rejection of the community's norms without | nuance or justification beyond "well other people do it | too so that makes it ok". | BrandonM wrote: | I use downvotes to signal disagreement when, from my | perspective, someone is giving bad advice, not accurately | representing the truth, speculating in an unproductive | way, distracting from the discussion with completely | unfounded claims, etc. | | I personally think of "disagreement" as a continuum, | where one end is pretty close to my own view, and the | other is absolutely abhorrent or incoherent. Certainly | part of that continuum warrants downvotes. "Don't use | downvotes to signal disagreement," is meaningless in that | context. | | More concretely, the HN guidelines say nothing about why | to downvote. They only say, "Please don't comment about | the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it | makes boring reading." | jonnycomputer wrote: | Actually, I think you completely misunderstood. I agree | with you 110 percent that downvotes _shouldn 't_ be used | to signal disagreement; I disagreed with you because that | is, in fact, exactly how it is used most of the time. My | downvote of you was ironic, illustrative of just how | stupid down votes are. I was making a point. I think HN | should remove down votes entirely, or make them costly, | or required a tagged explanation. | bhupy wrote: | Isn't that what flagging is for? | tremon wrote: | Flagging is for spam, at least that what I use it for. I | reserve my downvotes for conversational indecency: bad | faith arguments, personal attacks, not | acknowledging/engaging the parent post's points. | bhupy wrote: | I'm not sure why spam should be treated any differently | than conversational indecency (personal attacks, bad | faith arguing); in theory it could all fall under the | bucket of "this doesn't belong here", right? | tremon wrote: | To me the difference is "this user doesn't belong here, | go away" versus "this post doesn't belong here, try | harder". | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | Personally, I flag for blatant rule violations such as | comments that are filled with personal attacks or spam. | | I will downvote comments that are simply low quality, | like comments that merely say "^ This!". I don't usually | downvote bad faith arguing because it's hard to prove | when someone is arguing in bad faith versus just simply | having bad arguments. | [deleted] | kodah wrote: | I don't know if you meant to make this funny, but I laughed | really hard. | nix0n wrote: | Stack Overflow is certainly one to talk about this. | | Last time I tried (a few years ago), voting in either direction | required a minimum number of points there also. | | These days, I accept the votes on S.O. for what they are, and hit | the "End" key to read the least-upvoted answer first. | benlivengood wrote: | I've been through several forum deaths. The cause is usually | large growth from people with very different mindsets that | downvote for essentially political reasons instead of encouraging | good discourse. This makes the best people leave in short order. | | In a sense there's no way to structure a forum to avoid this. | Being outnumbered by people who don't value open communication is | unpleasant with or without downvoting. Forums that are highly | specific to a small audience can last a long time. Popularity is | the death-knell. | rurp wrote: | This matches my experience as well. | | HN having a reasonably high karma threshold for downvoting was | a great decision that guards against a lot of common problems. | I think that feature, along with the community as a whole being | very mindful about protecting the forum quality, plus Dang | being an excellent moderator, have greatly contributed to | keeping it strong for many years. | ipband wrote: | It's not just downvoting that makes HN strong, it's IP | banning. Right now I'm commenting via a new user I created | via my work VPN, because nothing on my home network is | allowed to create new users on HN now or effectively comment, | since I always did so using temporary accounts. I'm getting | so much more done, so- thanks, HN! | striking wrote: | You can usually be un-IP-banned by going to a particular | URL. It's usually not permanent. | | As for the thing you were banned for, do you feel like HN | owes you the ability to make an account per comment? | ipband wrote: | I made the mistake of practicing free speech in a way | that didn't meet the standards. Specifically, I called | something out for being stupid in one comment with 1-2 | expletives and in another comment I shared a paranoid | experience I had with my vaccine, stating clearly it was | probably paranoid. If those two things aren't a reason to | take away my free speech, I don't know what would be. Go, | HN! Up with the valley! | ascar wrote: | Are static ips a common thing in the US? Here in Germany | getting a fresh ip is as easy as restarting the router | unless you explicitly pay for a static ip. | jpindar wrote: | Static ips are not common, but ips that are technically | dynamic but in fact rarely change are. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | Depends on the ISP. | | For some people, simply rebooting their router gets a new | IP. Others have to explicitly tell it to release the IP | and then renew it. Others have to change their router's | MAC address. | | I know that personally, if I release it and renew it, | I'll get assigned the same IP. Though my IP is | technically dynamic, it hasn't changed in the 5 years | I've been in this house. I haven't tried changing my MAC | address, but with a previous ISP, I had changed my | router's MAC and it wouldn't even get an IP at all until | I changed it back. Makes me wonder what would happen if I | had changed it to the MAC of a router being used by | another customer... | ipband wrote: | I'm not using a static IP, but heck they did it anyway. | They might have even banned my device IDs (MAC IDs) or | thing associated with my route. I don't like VPNs. | They're a false sense of security, like Tor, and babies. | I never trusted babies... | ipband wrote: | Just kidding about the babies, folks! They're no more a | false sense of security than adults or adolescents! | joering2 wrote: | Would actually like to see a list of largest karma-wise HN | members who left. | | By leaving I would say over 180 days inactive. Dang can you | post the result please: | | _SELECT hn_name, hn_karma, hn_last_active FROM comments WHERE | TIMESTAMPDIFF(DAY, hn_last_active, NOW()) > 180 ORDER BY | hn_karma DESC LIMIT 100_ | krapp wrote: | >SELECT hn_name, hn_karma, hn_last_active FROM comments WHERE | TIMESTAMPDIFF(DAY, hn_last_active, NOW()) > 180 ORDER BY | hn_karma DESC LIMIT 100 | | Ah, Hacker News is too cool to use something as pedestrian as | a database ;) | | But there is a Google BigQuery dataset[0,1]. I don't know how | up to date it is. | | [0]https://console.cloud.google.com/bigquery?p=bigquery- | public-... | | [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10440502 | downandout wrote: | I used to be incredibly active on here, and then I started | getting downvoted on virtually every comment, likely for | political reasons. I have all but stopped commenting compared | to my previous activity. It just stopped being fun. Even | posts I make that have nothing to do with politics, that only | point out provable, factual information, get downvoted. I | have over 13K karma, even after losing a few thousand points | over the last 18 months or so. So the things that I have to | say weren't always unpopular. I didn't change - the community | did. It became a hostile, vindictive place. | | I still visit daily because HN does a good job of surfacing | interesting articles, but I used to find the comments more | interesting than the stories themselves. That has changed in | the last few years, as identity politics have taken hold. | It's sad to see. | 0xEFF wrote: | Down voted you because of your about me. | downandout wrote: | I believe it's an honest assessment of the current state | of HN. | DangitBobby wrote: | It's a bit passive aggressive, don't you think, to do | drive-by insults of random strangers? | downandout wrote: | When I first put that up, I actually ended it by saying | "Be part of the solution" or something along those lines. | Then, as the downvotes kept coming, I came to realize | that most of the people checking my profile had just | downvoted one of my comments, and were there looking for | additional comments to downvote. That's why it has a | pretty negative tone. | type0 wrote: | If you stop making comments with negative tone maybe you | will stop getting downvotes. | benlivengood wrote: | I think you're using an overly broad brush. For example, | you still feel it's worthwhile to comment sometimes which | implies that there are bastions of useful content, which | you don't list. I'm sure we disagree on things, which | limits the extent of groupthink. | | Beyond that, there's the relative difference between HN | and places like 4chan. Nuance is helpful. | DangitBobby wrote: | I have briefly perused your comments and most of them | seem to be interesting contributions. Some of them were | definitely downvoted for no real reason AFAICT other than | offering up unpopular opinions, and still others appeared | to be downvoted for being what I think is a combative | tone. You do, in general I think, come across as a bit | combative. You have interesting, relevant, and/or factual | things to say, maybe consider how what you are saying | comes across. | ascar wrote: | I remember you because of the about me. | | I was reading a somewhat controversial comment from you | and then visited your account page probably to check for | sibling comments in the same post. Your about me | definitely changed how I feel about your comments and | probably the source of your recent experience. | downandout wrote: | My about me is based upon my experience here over the | last few years. I updated it at some point in the last 6 | months, long after all this started. So it is a symptom | of my experience here, not a cause. | burnished wrote: | What are some of your views that you think have become | unpopular over time? | downandout wrote: | I don't actually know. I am who I am, and have been | responding to things in the same way since I arrived on | the site. I took a lot of flack for criticizing GDPR, | which I agree with in principle but believe was very | poorly implemented. Also people seem to have confused me | for a Trump supporter, even though I am middle-of-the- | road politically - which is why I suspect that I get many | automatic downvotes regardless of the content of my | comments. I try to call things as I see them, and any | criticism of left-leaning principles/programs/policies on | here - even the most misguided ones - tends to meet with | instant, harsh rebuke. | benlivengood wrote: | > I try to call things as I see them, and any criticism | of left-leaning principles/programs/policies on here - | even the most misguided ones - tends to meet with | instant, harsh rebuke. | | Something to consider; is it a harsh rebuke or just other | people calling it as they see it? | type0 wrote: | Have you considered changing your account from 'downandout' | to 'downvoteme'? It probably would do the trick. | TigeriusKirk wrote: | I agree it's a good place to find interesting articles. | | I also think reading the comments is rarely a good use of | time. Just feels like the median discussion site in that | regard. | [deleted] | the_lonely_road wrote: | Be the change that you want to see in the universe. HN has a | super easy to use API and I have downloaded the entire | history of the site before for a past project. If you don't | want to do the leg work yourself I am positive that the data | set is out there for download somewhere if you google around. | minimaxir wrote: | Data analysis note: the public datasets only have | submissions and comments, and just because a HN user has | stopped submitting/commenting doesn't mean they _quit_ HN. | Lurking is fun. | brewdad wrote: | And now, by commenting, you've reset your activity clock. | Time to lurk for the next 6 months so you look inactive. | DoreenMichele wrote: | Some people have simply changed their handle and that | likely wouldn't be obvious from the public data set | either. | | My old handle has 25k. It has been inactive since I moved | to this one. | frosted-flakes wrote: | Curious, why did you create a new account? | DoreenMichele wrote: | My old handle unfortunately and innocently looks like | "I'm just here to start shit!" It did not occur to me it | might be misinterpreted a certain way until six weeks | after I started it and I didn't think it important at | that point. As I gained more karma, I did a blog post at | some point explaining the completely innocent origin | story for it (typo and all). After I hit the leaderboard, | I decided, basically, "Oh, brother. This is so not worth | the hassle involved. Yeesh." And changed to my actual | first and middle names. | robocat wrote: | That would give no information about the reason someone left: | there are a lot of reasons to stop interacting with hn that | have nothing to do with the "best people leave in short | order" theory. | type0 wrote: | I know some people just switched to a different account and | you would think they left. | fortran77 wrote: | Exactly! I change my HN username every now and then. | frongpik wrote: | The broken concept is downvoting for others. Instead, it should | be downvoting for yourself. If somebody downvotes of flags | something, I don't want that something to be hidden from my | view, unless I've upvoted the downvoter in past. The "global | downvoting" model feeds the wannabe censors who feel entitled | to impose their opinion on others. | jvanderbot wrote: | >The cause is usually large growth from people with very | different mindsets that downvote for essentially political | reasons instead of encouraging good discourse. | | You've quite well described my latest experienced with | StackExchange sites that are very popular (like Stack | Overflow). The downvotes rain for any question without | feedback. A comment provides an answer, but not an "Answer" | that can be pinned. Vague "Opinion based" flags are sometimes | levied, but similar questions for different regimes are upvoted | and given quality answers. | LinuxBender wrote: | I've had similar experiences on ServerFault _part of | StachExchange_. If I simply answer a question with the | correct technical answer, my answer is basically ignored. If | I take that exact same answer and add a bold title, some cute | paragraph formatting, some no-format text boxes, add some | flowery wording like I am giving a Ted Talk, then people love | my answers. So that is what I do and why I rarely answer | questions any more. They also try to encourage me to edit | other peoples posts, but I already have a day job. | rhizome wrote: | I feel like a _lot_ more people qualify to do | metamoderation in the SO network than ever do it. This is | essentially sabotage in the form of benign neglect. | LinuxBender wrote: | Very true and it gets even more complicated when there | are small circles of full time editors that invoke | elitism around document writing styles as well as chiming | in on highly subjective answers and invoking dogmatic | principals. In Unix/Linux, there are millions of ways to | solve a problem, but the solution must fit into their | perceived _right way_. Before long, people not in those | elite circles or who do not get the hint are discouraged | from editing or answering anything. | CDRdude wrote: | I think slashdot's voting system was well equipped to avoid | that problem, but they faded anyway. Maybe it was the redesign? | I think many of their innovations in 1999 would go a long way | to resolve political downvoting today---new accounts were | unable to vote on comments, you were unable to vote and comment | in the same posts, metamoderation to ensure fairness, and up or | downvotes having to fit categories like 'insightful' or | 'offtopic'. | klyrs wrote: | I dunno about everybody else, but there were about 15 years | where every single story had several trolls commenting purely | for the purpose of dropping a racial slur. Meta-moderate for | long enough, and you could occasionally earn 5 karma, which | could easily get blown on downvoting stupid shit from a | single story. It was a cesspool, and I think a lot of people | left because of that. | | They started a really good thing with the user moderation, I | think meta-moderation and the vote-category dropdown are very | smart, but they locked it down too hard and moderation was | largely ineffective. | jcpham2 wrote: | Slashdot is where I learned about bitcoin mining in 2011 or | so and then I woke up and a) started applying the time value | of money to a lot of things and b) stopped having | intellectual discussions on the open internet. | | That is very real truth that according to the current | narrative taking place in the comments here, many of you will | downvote what I am saying because you don't like... whatever | it is you don't like. | | I have had children and paid off two mortgages since then. | Explaining my point of view to the mob no longer has value to | me. | Cd00d wrote: | Personally, I left slashdot when I felt the community | changed. It started to feel less like excitement, and more | like cranky libertarians complaining. I remember CmdrTaco | leaving the helm, so maybe it was his steering that kept it | good to me? No idea. | | When I gave up on slashdot I put a call out to my social | circle for a replacement, and that's how I learned about HN! | That was nearly a decade ago, and I'm still grateful! | artificialLimbs wrote: | A lot of people were pretty upset about the redesign. They | also sold to Conde Nast and started adopting a different | (more intrusive) model of advertising. I can't remember | details but the site started feeling more.... slimey over | time. | | Slashdot's commenting/moderation system was exceptional. | | Grateful to HN for the excellence of theirs. | benlivengood wrote: | Slashdot got popular and the insightful comments got drowned | out by Funny+5 because it's low effort karma building that | feels like being popular. | | I learned my lesson and try to only inject humor into | otherwise useful comments on HN. | DangitBobby wrote: | This is one of those things that I did not realize kills | discourse until I experienced a community that mainly posts | serious content and discussion. Reddit now is particularly | bad as each thread is sea of quips, one-liners, and | trashtalk which pretty much floods out the pond of | interesting discussion. "Funny" can be a great thing, but | if that's all anyone ever tries to offer, it becomes very | tiresome. | anaerobicover wrote: | I agree. Cheap/stupid jokes mostly get downvoted here, | and it's one of the things I like about HN! | TheManInThePub wrote: | Frankly, I couldn't agree with this more. | | I've seen intelligent and insightful HN posts down voted | simply because they went against the status-quo. If this is | allowed to go on, people will be afraid of making | controversial (but intelligent) posts, and this place will | become another reddit. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | I've noticed that when I comment against the status quo, my | comments quickly dip to -2 or lower from rapid fire | downvotes, then slowly tick upward into positive territory | over time as the more patient readers come through. | | It would be interesting to see if time-weighting the votes | somehow could improve the signal. Maybe give less weight to | someone who rapid-fire downvotes comments faster than they | could possibly read them? | a1369209993 wrote: | > It would be interesting to see if time-weighting the | votes somehow could improve the signal. | | Perversely, downvotes aren't available on comments older | than 24 hours, but upvotes are, so comments that attract | a mixture of up- and down-votes get a strong upward bias | on votes they attract after a day (since the upvotes | happen and the downvotes don't). | | Not sure how relevant that effect is to more short-term | issues, though. | type0 wrote: | It does make the downvotes irrelevant in a way, it only | signals strong disagreement which I think it's good to | know. But it's not good to interpret the downvotes as | correction method for yourself because it only leads to | more echochamber. | joseluisq wrote: | Agree. And yes, privilege just uncontroversial standpoints | or promote indirect pressure over the members will result | in community fragmentation. Therefore HN could turn into | "one of many" monotone sites to just pass around. | II2II wrote: | I suspect that events outside of HN would have more of a | chilling effect than the environment of HN itself. I know | there are times when I felt like presenting a contrary view | on a story but did not. I suspect that a fair number of HN | members may even accept those points of view. Yet I have | also seen enough of those "conversations" to know that they | rapidly go downhill. | ROARosen wrote: | > I've seen intelligent and insightful HN posts down voted | simply because they went against the status-quo. | | It is not possible to download posts on HackerNews, no | matter how many karma you have. Did you mean comments? | Because I think that actually one of the strongests points | of HN that all posts will get equal footing. (they can be | flagged though) | ascar wrote: | > I've seen intelligent and insightful HN posts down voted | simply because they went against the status-quo | | The best thing to do here is for the community to step in | and actively up-vote unfairly downvoted comments. | FooHentai wrote: | I try and do that but often the comment is full dead and | can't be upvoted. | the_only_law wrote: | Isn't there supposed to be a vouch system? I've seen | comments that were flagged to death that shouldn't have | been (and a lot more vice versa) but I never seem to see | the vouch link whether I have showdead on or not. | a1369209993 wrote: | Not sure if it matches your problem, but FWIW, vouch only | seems to show up for comments that already dead (not just | flagged and downvoted). | bscphil wrote: | I see the vouch link, but only when I click on the | permalink to the comment. | robocat wrote: | > down voted simply because they went against the status- | quo. | | Every tool will be abused sometimes. | | I think the voting system mostly works extremely well - the | system needs to be viewed as a whole with all the | compromises that includes, rather than drill down on one | particular failure. | | Sometimes people use voting for bad reasons -- I know I | have (though I am quite conscientious to try and learn to | vote more carefully). | renewiltord wrote: | I like the idea of paying to downvote, but also an interesting | effect of downvotes is that they skew views of a position. | | Having one upvote and 100 downvotes is the same as having 401 | upvotes and 500 downvotes. Isn't that odd? One is a comment | everyone hates and the other is a comment almost half of all | people like. | clairity wrote: | what you're getting at is that both the mean and the variance | have information (they're independent variables), which is good | to keep in mind. on hn, both of your examples would be at -4 | (dead) with no way of differentiating the two. | happytoexplain wrote: | >I can't recall ever seeing a single negative voted comment in | all the times I've visited Hacker News | | That's interesting. I wonder how that could be the case. | Macha wrote: | While the treshold for downvoting has increased since 2009, the | threshold hasn't increased to the same level that the number of | active users (and therefore votes) have, so I would guess | proportionally way more of the community has access to | downvotes today than in 2009. | | Also, I think in those days you did see vote numbers, but you | didn't see the big obvious greying out of downvoted comments | that exists today. | gwbas1c wrote: | I don't know if these are popular opinions or not: | | 1: I really wish I could downvote Hacker News articles. | | 2: I really wish there was some friction to downvoting. Perhaps | something like choosing among: disagree, factually wrong, mean, | incoherent | | Regarding the downvoting of articles: For awhile I used to see a | regular pattern of weird articles on the front page. The | discussion would then predictably involve a mod defending the | article. IMO, I think downvoting an article would help in this | situation. | latortuga wrote: | Didn't slashdot have a feature kind of like this? Reasons why | something was upvoted or downvoted alongside their score. | MaxBarraclough wrote: | Correct. SoylentNews goes one step further, and adds _+0 | agree_ and _-0 disagree_. I 'm not sure if such votes have | any real effect. | ryandrake wrote: | I love the idea of +0 for Agree and -0 for Disagree. A | comment's score should be about how high quality it is, not | how popular it is or how many people agree with it. Keep a | separate agree/disagree count for users who are curious. | Leave actual negative scores for low quality things like | spam, flamebait and harassment. | systemvoltage wrote: | Reduce the bandwagon effect. People see a slightly gray (0 | points) comment and pile up on it without thinking. It affects | their view and introduces a subconcious bias. | | Just don't grey out comments for 2 hours or so to allow people | to vote. It's fine to greyout comments after that. | Blikkentrekker wrote: | I rather really wish there was no way at all to vote on | comments. -- what purpose does it serve? | | I very often see the top comment on the page to be a | thoughtless one-line that is self-evident, but also not wrong | nor easily disagreed with, and thus incurring the most upvotes | from simply being quick to read. | dragonwriter wrote: | > I rather really wish there was no way at all to vote on | comments. -- what purpose does it serve? | | It serves both to manage the S/N ratio and to provide | feedback to commenters on what the community sees as signal | vs. noise. | | > I very often see the top comment on the page to be a | thoughtless one-line that is self-evident, but also not wrong | | I don't see that often on threads with substantial | discussion. I suppose if that was a real problem, weighting | upvotes by some measure of how relatively unfavorable the | comment's position is at the time upvoted would mitigate it. | Scottopherson wrote: | I don't have the ability to downvote. Is it possible to undo an | upvote? I sometimes upvote a comment by accident when viewing HN | on mobile. | gnicholas wrote: | Downvoting is enabled when your karma reaches a threshold | (500?). You can undo votes in either direction via the "unvote" | or "undown" links that appear after voting. I think this is | only possible for a short period of time after your original | vote. | oehpr wrote: | Accidental upvotes used to be a problem, but that's been fixed | for a while now. You should see the word "unvote" appear | https://i.imgur.com/jaNanv9.png | blackshaw wrote: | Yes - after you upvote, a link that says "unvote" will appear | above the comment. E.g. the following text currently appears to | me above your comment: | | Scottopherson 5 minutes ago | unvote | parent | flag | favorite | | on: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets ... | | Don't feel bad that you didn't notice - I was reading HN for a | _long_ time before I realised that un-upvoting was possible. | not_knuth wrote: | There should be a clickable "unvote" above the comment if you | wish to do so. | | Regarding anything else about how Hacker News works, I found | this quite useful: | | https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented/blob/m... | kergonath wrote: | The UX is subpar on mobile. Too many tiny links too close to | each other. | gweinberg wrote: | Personally I'd prefer if comments displayed upvotes and downvotes | as separate tallies instead of a total. It means something very | different if a post as a lot of up and down votes that sum to | about zero or if it has no votes at all. | cheschire wrote: | Imgur is a great example of this at work. | batch12 wrote: | I would like the ability to see my ratio of upvotes to downvotes. | I think it would help show me if I was applying the same zeal to | promote ideas as I use to demote them. | jessaustin wrote: | Is there a reason to think that equality is important here? | Could it be that promotion zeal should be e.g. 62% of demotion | zeal? | batch12 wrote: | It would be interesting to know if I am quicker to reward a | good idea vs punish a bad one. No target in mind. | fluidcruft wrote: | One thing I noticed recently about HN voting is that it seems | like you can upvote but cannot downvote immediate replies to your | own comments. Other users can still downvote the comments. When I | noticed that it struck me as very clever and something reddit | should immediately poach. It's like a built-in cooling off | period. | dustinmoris wrote: | Kind of ironic because HN still remains one of the most | interesting and engaging communities whereas StackOverflow has | become pretty insignificant, outdated, stale and very hostile and | unfriendly to new posters. | elhudy wrote: | The glaring issue in this article (which I couldn't bring myself | to finish) is that he equates downvoting to "evil or incorrect | post(s)". Which would be true in an ideal world, but the reality | becomes downvotes are equivalent to "I disagree with you". | | If plentiful downvoting is allowed, discourse becomes a | popularity contest. Fortunately most of the experienced users | here seem to understand this and reserve their downvotes for | appropriate situations. | noxToken wrote: | Downvoting can also have a snowball effect. If someone | disagrees with you, especially in a contested topic where it's | opinion or unclear who is correct, downvotes signal other | people to also downvote. You can see the effect on Reddit. | | Comments that hit -1 can still recover. Comments rarely recover | after -3 or so. The only counter is for the commenter to edit | and call out readers for frivolous downvoting. | robocat wrote: | > The only counter is for the commenter to edit and call out | readers for frivolous downvoting. | | That usually earns a downvote from me. People commenting on | downvotes is boring and usually shows a lack of insight, for | example obviously making zero effort to understand why their | comment is poorly received, or blaming a conspiracy, or | blaming groupthink. I have occasionally answered "why the | downvotes" questions, but it usually feels like a waste of my | time to do so. | bena wrote: | I have a comment on reddit that was both downvoted to nearly | -100 and was given gold. I was given the award because the | actual information I gave was correct. Which someone | mentioned in a reply. It was downvoted because no one liked | the answer. | listenallyall wrote: | There is definitely a phenomenon where truthful/factual but | "inconvenient" comments are much more vigorously downvoted | than false, inaccurate or incorrect ones. | DoreenMichele wrote: | Well, you have my respect. Standing on a thing you know to | be correct that gets that much open dislike is not an easy | thing to do. Most people likely would have deleted the | correct but hated answer long before it accumulated that | many downvotes. | bena wrote: | The only posts I delete are when the site goes weird and | it double or triple posts. | | I never delete posts simply because they are unpopular. | In my personal view, that's a coward's move. It tells me | that the user doesn't really have any actual conviction, | doesn't really believe in what they're saying. If being | popular is more important to that person than being | correct, then I find their opinion worthless. Because | apparently it can be dictated by popular opinion. And I | mean actually correct, not just "winning the argument". | | I also dislike people who double reply or who use the | edit feature to essentially pull an "and another thing". | Living out the l'esprit d'escalier fantasy essentially. | | Also people who proclaim they won't be responding or tell | others not to respond. It's a poor rhetorical tactic to | silence opposition because you don't have a good | response. | DoreenMichele wrote: | Some people are more vulnerable than others or have | reasons other than the downvotes per se for a deletion. | For example, r/homeless seems to see a lot of deletions | due to the extreme vulnerability of the population. | | Still, kudos for standing by an unpopular but correct | statement in that instance. And kudos to the person who | gave you gold for it. | renewiltord wrote: | pg once said that since upvotes are used to agree, using | downvotes to disagree isn't bad. I am often downvoted even when | making civil comments that people disagree with and I'm fine | with it. That's how this forum operates. So be it. | pixl97 wrote: | I'd love to create a new voting system that looks like an | orange sliced in half. The top 4 options are positives, the | bottom 4 negatives. Everyone gets 2 votes per post. Two of | the options are 'I agree' and the other is 'I disagree with | this post' | notafraudster wrote: | I tend to downvote at the nexus of stuff I disagree with + | expressed in an unproductive, rude, spammy, abusive, or flip | manner. It's certainly true that when a flippant post is | something I agree with I'm more likely to elide on by it. I | assume most people do the same thing. | robbyking wrote: | I moderate a reddit community with ~200k subscribers, and I | really wish I could disable downvoting. Automod takes care of | most posts that violate our community rules, and I usually | catch the ones that slip past within an hour or so. | | On the opposite end of the spectrum, quality posts are almost | always downvoted immediately. (I assume it's by self-promoters | hoping that it will cause their content to rise in the | rankings.) | | Hiding posts scores has helped with bandwagoning, but I wish | the two options were "upvote" and "report to mods." | FpUser wrote: | >"...upvote and report to mods." | | This to me seems like the best approach. | mjevans wrote: | Further: | | A) It would be nice if the mods had a way to flag the post to | make it require additional work to see on most / default | clients. | | B) If multiple mods sign off on a given post being a poor | match for constructive discourse that is when most clients | wouldn't even display the existence without a special viewing | mode or preference. (This assumes an append / write-only | forum.) | | C) For all USERS, it would be nice if a special type of reply | allowed for a post to be a "contrasting viewpoint", which | might get displayed at the same node-level as the post being | replied to, as part of a package of tightly related views on | a topic. | jasode wrote: | I think a critical missing context of reposting an old 2009 | article is that a _newer post in 2011_ makes downvotes _free_ | instead of costing reputation: | | >Jeff Atwood announced change of policy -- _" Downvotes on | questions no longer cost the casting user 1 reputation, so they | are effectively "free". [...] So, it's imperative the question | list have a high signal-to-noise ratio, and removing the penalty | for those users who do take the time to read a question and later | find it to be useless so they can down-vote is conducive to | that."_ -- excerpt from : | https://stackoverflow.blog/2011/06/13/optimizing-for-pearls-... | | Why? He saw that users were _too hesitant in downvoting_ which | allowed bad content to grow and further degraded the site. | Changing the downvoting mechanics fixed that. | | (I don't know if there's been an update since 2011 to the | downvoting system and incentives.) | blargpls wrote: | Downvotes on questions are free, downvotes on answers cost 1 | reputation (see | https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/7237/how-does- | reput...). | type0 wrote: | Ah, this explains why it gets more and more outdated. | deeg wrote: | I assume that Jeff has changed his mind on this because Discourse | does not have down-votes (with the caveat that Discourse has a | different audience from HN). I wonder what made the difference? | uniqueid wrote: | He and Joel had this bullet-proof theory that, since quality | answers are more valuable on SO than questions, the site should | encourage users to criticize their peers. | | So what presumably happened is that he noticed that philosophy, | sound as it may be on paper, created a miserable atmosphere. | jcims wrote: | I sometimes wonder if the simplicity of the upvote/downvote | exposes it to the limbic decisioning, where some portion of the | signal is pure lizard brain reaction vs a thoughtful act to help | moderate the community. | ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: | Interesting, making downvotes costly seems like a good system. | Though downvotes seem to work pretty well as-is for HN, I rarely | see dead comments that were killed by downvotes rather than anti- | spam features. | | If we take HN as reddit 2.0, what would be HN 2.0 I wonder? If I | were the one to make it I'd create a system to promote the | comments of people with professional expertise on the subject | being discussed. HN has mostly solved the politeness and flamewar | issues but IMO one its major flaws is that people speak | authoritatively about things they don't know about. | sam_lowry_ wrote: | >making downvotes costly seems like a good system | | Habr.com makes both up and downvotes costly, and they have an | evolved system checks and balances. The best I've seen. They | can even fight off Kremlin bots successfully, this is major | feat in their region/language of choice. | jjk166 wrote: | While not a perfect solution, perhaps you could tag various | conversations by subject and keeping track of which topics a | user tends to discuss. If a user mostly talks about a few | subjects, have their comments in conversations with those tags | be prioritized by the ranking algorithm and deprioritized | outside of it. Obviously just because you spend a lot of time | talking about something doesn't mean you actually know much | about it, but it's a start. Perhaps you could improve further | by keeping track of users' karma within a topic (presumably | those speaking from ignorance will be less upvoted), but this | runs the risk of promoting views that are popular instead of | informed. | threatofrain wrote: | I think if people want the next level of quality on technical | discussion, there needs to be a gatekeeping mechanism which is | concerned with technical competency. | | I would also expect such a place to have a magnitude or two | fewer people. | ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: | I've tried that in my own community but it's a real struggle | because in my experience newbies drive the conversation much | more than pros so in my case gatekeeping was creating a | silent community of highly skilled lurkers. | | With no gatekeeping, there's lots of activity and pros feel | like participating once in a while with deep discussions | sparked from seemingly simple questions, but on the other | hand a lot of pros feel alienated and leave if the average | level of competency is too low. | | I've been toying with the idea of pro:newbie ratios but | haven't implemented anything yet. | willyt wrote: | You would need to provide professional indemnity insurance | cover. Most policies likely don't cover advising the whole | internet. | lordnacho wrote: | SO and HN are a bit different though. When you go to SO, you | want to know what is right. For HN, you want to read something | interesting. | polytely wrote: | Maybe downvotes should cost some karma? might be a trigger to | think before downvoting | Aisen8010 wrote: | They are doing a pretty good keeping the spammers away, | considering how easy it is to create a new account. | kingsuper20 wrote: | "Interesting, making downvotes costly seems like a good | system." | | Say, I like the idea. No doubt people have discussed this to | death elsewhere. You can definitely see downvotes used as | simple disagreement or for punishing unpopular speech (rather | than being wrong, let's say). That's a bummer but is a side | effect of modern times. | | Let's say that a issuing a downvote resulted in a 15 minute | break from posting or voting. You gotta want to do it. | | " people speak authoritatively about things they don't know | about." | | I'm afraid that's baked deeply into the DNA of computer | programmers. | germinalphrase wrote: | "one its major flaws is that people speak authoritatively about | things they don't know about" | | See: any thread about aeronautics, education, or (historical) | warfare. | ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: | ... and machine learning and medical research and ... | zentiggr wrote: | ... and ... and ... and ... | teach wrote: | I personally notice this most frequently on the topic of | human nutrition. Most days I don't bother to read the | comments on ANY nutrition article because they're too | depressingly wrong. | pvg wrote: | HN comments can't be killed by downvotes and the karma loss on | the commenter is capped at -4. As forums-with-downvoting go, | HN's version is fairly benign. | philipkglass wrote: | It's easier to write a bad comment than a good one, so I don't | think that downvoting bad comments should be more difficult | than it is now. HN software already has little nudges that make | it easier to gain karma than to lose it: | | - You can earn points but never lose them by submitting URLs | for discussion. | | - You can't lose more than 4 points per post, no matter how | many times it is downvoted. There is no upper limit to points | gained from a single upvoted comment. | | - There is only a 24 hour time window in which comments can be | downvoted, but they can still be upvoted even months later. | | The expertise problem is harder. Sometimes I see a post that | has more misconceptions than sentences, but is grammatically | correct and written in a confident tone. Only people who | actually understand the subject matter will spot the problems | quickly. It's tedious to write introductory level corrections | for commonly repeated mistakes. For some of them I have | considered keeping a mini-FAQ locally and pasting standard | responses to standard misconceptions, but HN also discourages | repeating identical posts. | | If I downvote a misinformed post the original poster won't know | where they went wrong, and people who see a grayed post won't | necessarily understand what's wrong with it either. The saving | grace of the downvote is that it affects comment sorting order, | so at least misconception-heavy posts that are downvoted won't | dominate the upper reaches of the discussion page. | winstonchecksin wrote: | What's the criteria for a "bad comment"? And how do you | objectively evaluate it? | | I lurk and post once in a while. What I've noticed is that | rarely is something downvoted for being factually incorrect | (relatively speaking). You just have to offer a perspective | that doesn't conform with the hive mind and the downvoting | essentially amounts to censorship of opinions. | Blikkentrekker wrote: | It also depends on time hours. | | I once made a post that criticized the Anglocentric | perspective of an article. -- it was initially upvoted, but | then became downvoted when UTC+2 went to sleep, and then | upvoted again when UTC+2 woke up. -- one can take a | particular guess as to why. | philipkglass wrote: | Most of the comments I downvote the official comment | guidelines in the section "In Comments" here: | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | When I see heated back-and-forth discussion chains I'll | often find myself downvoting several comments and upvoting | none of them, because sarcastic quippy retorts to bad | comments are _also_ bad comments. | | I'll also downvote comments for factual inaccuracy, | particularly if I don't have the time to patiently correct | them. This only partially mitigates the damage and doesn't | really help the original author to learn. When someone | writes a comment with just a single big mistake, and they | don't seem to have a history of willfully repeating it, | that's when I am most likely to write a lengthy reply with | explanation and citations. | jjnoakes wrote: | I'd appreciate some examples. I'm not saying it doesn't | happen, but in my experience downvoted comments tend to | have something beyond a counterpoint or difference of | opinion; their content is usually irrelevant or | unnecessarily snarky or somehow hostile. | hn8788 wrote: | I don't really have the time to go digging around for | examples, but it's common enough that one of the site | rules is to not complain about downvotes because it | frequently happens for no reason. | scpedicini wrote: | Anything which is Reddit level of quality in terms of | contributing value. For example, low hanging puns that add | no actual substantial information. | clairity wrote: | > "If I downvote a misinformed post the original poster won't | know where they went wrong, and people who see a grayed post | won't necessarily understand what's wrong with it either." | | that's ok, the onus is on the downvoted poster to figure it | out for themselves. usually that requires seeing a pattern | over the course of a few downvoted posts rather than | pinpointing it exactly from a given post. | | most downvoted posts break one or more hn rules, but a few | are downvoted ideologically, so a little resilience is | required. strictly unpopular opinions can often be more | tactfully rephrased and at least be accepted for discussion, | if not agreement. this is a pretty good life skill to develop | generally anyways. | teach wrote: | I find it sort-of ironic that at the time I am writing this | reply, _your_ comment has been downvoted and I'm not sure | why. | | Presumably the onus is on you to figure that out, but good | luck, since I'm not sure either and usually I can tell. | clairity wrote: | yes, sometimes the reason is truly inscrutible. that's | where the resilience part comes in. =) | causality0 wrote: | Not everything on HN is user-facing. For example, one comment | can only sink to -4 points, but further downvotes on that | comment still contribute to the user being muted. I've | experienced that myself. | simias wrote: | I think downvoting is an anti-pattern because it's a negative | interaction, and I think negative interactions shouldn't be | encouraged if we value high quality discourse. | | If downvoting bad comments (for any definition of bad) was | harder or even outright impossible you'd still have an | alternative: upvote an other, better comment to have it | shadow what you consider a less valuable contribution. And | that's a positive interaction. | | Whenever I find a comment that I think is on-topic and | somewhat constructive, but I still fundamentally disagree | with the take, I generally go hunting for a comment that | embraces my point of view (or write one myself) and upvote | that. | | I very rarely downvote comments on this site, and generally | only do it for comments that I consider to be completely off | topic, flamebait or stupid "meme" references. That being said | I do comment quite a bit and I admit that I'm always a bit | frustrated when I take the time to write what I consider to | be a constructive (if sometimes controversial) comment and I | get downvoted reddit-style. It feels disrespectful, almost. I | probably care too much about that stuff, I acknowledge that. | btilly wrote: | The title should say that this was 2009. | | And I think that HN has held up pretty well over the years. | Hnrobert42 wrote: | I noticed the pub date when the author says that maybe HN gets | away without downvotes because HN is young, founded in 2007. I | am glad the author turned out to be wrong. | williesleg wrote: | Reminds me of all those yes people. | motohagiography wrote: | > The advantage of this system is that nobody gets downvoted, but | at a steep cost: we've lost half the potential information. | | A Mr. Claude Shannon would like a word. I joke, but when you have | controls on voting rings and co-ordination, downvotes are | necessarily noisier. An upvote is effectively neutral engagement | with the content, where a downvote actively reduces engagement. | From the perspective of wanting to mine the constructive | engagement out of the collective minds of the audience, downvotes | are about as meaningful and information dense as a fire alarm. | massung wrote: | No system will be free of problems or gaming. | | But, doesn't hacker news actually have implicit down voting by | way of time? HN isn't designed to be a searchable Q&A or forum. | It's a "what's a currently popular" site. If something isn't | good, it just disappears faster than the opposite. | | Have I wished I could down vote things sometimes? Sure. But then | I just wait 5 minutes, refresh, and it's gone. | type0 wrote: | Actually instead of counting down-votes HN software could just | count how often a post was up-voted and then that vote | regretted (reversed) and adjust the visibility to boost or | silence. But that is still susceptible to misuse so there | should be a limit on how often that would count. | endisneigh wrote: | I just wish you could remove the number next to your name | natively in HN. It can't seriously take more than 5 minutes to | implement this. There's no excuse IMHO. I want to interact with | the site without seeing the number change and wondering why it | did. | oehpr wrote: | I can sympathize. I used to have a filter for reddit to | eliminate the tally because I didn't like the effect it had on | me. | | I think the thing is though, HN and reddit don't give you | options to remove these numbers because they have an effect. | It's the nudge they give to people to adjust their | contributions to be something the community actually wants. No | shock these services are not offering options to turn that | nudge off. | | It might be nice of them to give the tally as class to make it | easy to filter with a userstyle, though. | ericmay wrote: | I really like downvoting where you lose one of your past upvotes | in order to downvote. It's a nice little filter that people who | care about how many upvotes they have won't use, and puts an end | to some amount of frivolous downvoting. | | In a meta way, you kind of have to use a little bit of your own | point capital to downvote something, so if you're highly upvoted | by the community then calling BS on something is easier for you | and the risk taking for doing so makes more sense, versus someone | who just signed up. | | I also wonder, for a site like hacker news what's the point of | even showing the user the # of upvotes they've obtained? | s1artibartfast wrote: | I like the idea of only showing the number of up boats and when | her user is negative, and possibly taking action at some point. | | And avoid users speaking to the audience opposed to directly | addressing the parent comment | | Hacker news gates some functionality based on accumulated | Votes, so maybe once you hit the necessary threshold it is | hidden | kergonath wrote: | I am not sure adding a cost to downvotes would promote | diversity so much. It is easy to game the system and post | popular opinions to farm upvotes. If you do what you say, you | give more power to the people already playing the reputation | game. | | You also let garbage fester because nobody will use points to | downvote a stupid, agressive one-liner. | | My experience is that: | | - voting on HN works well for its intended purpose, which is | surfacing the interesting conversations | | - dead comments really deserve to die (I can't remember a | counter-example) | | - greyed out comments tend to be right but unpopular, or right | but rude, or wrong, or just stupid. Of these, the problematic | cases are "right but unpopular", which is not that frequent. | And when it happens that's fine, they are still readable. | | > I also wonder, for a site like hacker news what's the point | of even showing the user the # of upvotes they've obtained? | | I assume it promotes engaging in the comments. It's true that | popularity contests should not be encouraged too much, but at | the same time I can see how having a number that can go down | would make some people think twice before knee-jerk posting or | casual trolling. | arnaudsm wrote: | I love the analogy that capping downvote values is like an ELU | activation function in machine learning. Whereas Reddit uses | TanH. | kjrose wrote: | Except, of course, you can downvote comments. | | So umm. Kinda missing the mark eh? | Koshkin wrote: | _Ars Technica_ got this right. | ggggtez wrote: | This is a very confusing post after you take into account that | the author misunderstood that actually you _can_ downvote | comments. | ameister14 wrote: | I think one obvious problem with downvoting where downvotes | automatically hide content is that it creates echo chambers. The | downvote button is definitely a 'disagree' button here and I | think it's not really conducive to great discussions. | | Then again, this isn't really a forum - it's transitory comments | about the news of the day. Perhaps the argument is that there | shouldn't be substantive discussion here in the first place. | You're clearly meant to respond to the article more than the | individual comment - the tree style commenting system and | automatically hidden nature of comments down the chain both speak | to that. | wincy wrote: | I'm not sure I agree. I tend to say things that are somewhat | controversial on HN, and if I said them in San Francisco I'd be | liable to be tarred and feathered, being a Libertarian from | Kansas, but I try to be diplomatic and haven't yet had a | comment that's gotten hidden. I think people are fairly | charitable as long as you're presenting a cogent argument. | | I always show dead comments and honestly, people aren't missing | out on much. To get your comment dead in my experience you have | to either be extremely inflammatory or just spout absolute | nonsense. | ameister14 wrote: | I think HN does it better than reddit, where the comments are | hidden quickly once negative, but I've seen a lot of comments | edited based on downvotes as people wonder what, exactly, | other users are disagreeing with. Doesn't exactly contribute | other than to say 'your opinion is wrong.' | asimjalis wrote: | I feel like Hacker News leaderboard was a lot more interesting in | the 2000s than it is now. Can anyone put their finger on why this | is? | NobodyNada wrote: | (2009), by Jeff Atwood. I would have been _very_ surprised to | hear today 's Stack Overflow staff talking about the value of | downvoting. | | Atwood's experience with downvoting on Hacker News is definitely | a bit dated as well: | | > (update: Apparently it is possible to downvote comments, which | I never realized. It is buried in the faq) | | > (I apologize for my misunderstanding, but there's no visible UI | for downvoting, and I can't recall ever seeing a single negative | voted comment in all the times I've visited Hacker News! Also, I | put these comments in parens to make them extra-LISPy so Paul | Graham would see my corrections.) | Macha wrote: | You might be surprised: | https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/04/26/stack-overflow-isnt-ve... | | There's been a couple of blog posts from the SE staff trying to | move the needle on how close/downvote happy the community is. | NobodyNada wrote: | Sorry for the confusion, I was referencing how it would be | unusual to hear SE staff today talking about why downvoting | is an important quality-control feature and how it can be | made more useful and more helpful for new users, rather than | just condemning downvotes as hostile. In fact, the blog post | you linked was at the forefront of my mind as an example of | SE staff not "getting it." | | Stack Overflow's moderation system has not scaled very well; | it's unhelpful for new users, and frustrating for power users | and volunteer moderators. The company has largely refused to | address these issues since about ~2015, when they promised a | series of grandiose moderation overhauls and...never | implemented any of it. | | Since then, their usual strategy for dealing with moderation | failures is to throw the community under the bus. The article | you linked caused a lot of drama within the community, | because it accused _volunteers_ of "judging users for not | knowing things" for performing basic moderation tasks like | marking questions as duplicates -- a feature that's supposed | to _help_ users by pointing them to an authoritative answer. | The duplicate feature has a lot of warts; it does not | adequately explain how users can nominate their question for | reopening by clarifying why it 's not a duplicate, and even | if it was discoverable the reopen process is horribly broken | anyway. But instead of addressing the obvious issues with the | moderation system, they just wrote a blog post about how | hostile their volunteers are. | | A longtime SE power user explained it better than I could: | https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/331513/258777 | | > For years, you have been working on cleaning up an oil drip | out of a beautiful lake with a spoon, but the small spoon you | have is actually a fork. You've spent years asking for at | least a spoon to work with, but have gotten nothing. For some | reason, though, you keep at it with the fork, for different | reasons - some are the people next to you also working with | forks, some are the occasional diamond that you can clean and | set and make nice - all for free and out of your own time. | | > Then, one day [...] the lake starts shouting at you about | how the fork you're using is being unfair to the oil - that | you're being too unwelcoming to the oil and not treating it | properly, completely ignoring the fact that you've been using | a fork and have been asking for better tools for _years_. The | lake slaps you anyway. | | In fairness: within the last year or two they finally seem to | have hired some staff members who finally get it and are | taking steps towards actually _fixing_ the site 's moderation | problems. However, I haven't been on the site for a while and | so I couldn't tell you whether they are actually having a | meaningful impact or just making more empty promises. | jodrellblank wrote: | > " _In fairness: within the last year or two they finally | seem to have hired some staff members who finally get it | and are taking steps towards actually fixing the site 's | moderation problems._" | | That is such a time frame to choose; right in the middle of | it, 1 year 6 months ago, the Monica incident happened[1]. | Do you mean before that or after that? | | In summary, StackOverflow said they were discussing a code | of conduct that would mandate volunteer moderators use | someone's preferred pronouns. Monica, a widely respected | moderator, asked if she could continue using gender-neutral | language under the proposed code of conduct. They kicked | her out alledging (incorrectly) that this was a statement | of intent to break the rules they hadn't brought in yet. | Then 50+ other moderators stood down in protest[2]. Then | the company doubled down on their decision and their | following silences. This unravelled into a lot of people | voicing their discontent with the way the StackExchange | company interacts with the volunteer mods and the | community, and builds on the back of the ~2019 one-sided | changes to try and make the community more welcoming to new | users by being harder on the people who are already the | community, and how badly that went down, and company | employee leaks saying the company is not engaging with the | community, and an apparent increase in pushing for money to | return to investors rather than any other mission. | | Right about the same time, they retrospectively relicensed | all questions, answers and comments ever submitted, | possibly illegally, and then refused for a long time to | comment on it.[3] | | [1] https://judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/5193/s | tack-... and a related post covering other things the | company has done fairly badly ~1 year ago - | https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/342950/ | | [2] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333965/firing- | mods-... | | [3] https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/333089/stack- | exchan... | seba_dos1 wrote: | > there's no visible UI for downvoting | | For you. I see two arrows - one for upvoting and one for | downvoting - next to every comment in this thread. | | [edit] Haha, somehow missed that this was a quote from the | article, sorry :D | zests wrote: | Except this one :) | amadeuspagel wrote: | > We've lost half the potential information. If a post has zero | upvotes, does that mean it's bad? incorrect? uninteresting? | mediocre? There's no way to tell, because zero has multiple | meanings. | | Having downvotes doesn't fix this problem. You still loose | information. If a post has zero upvotes, does that mean nobody | cares, or a lot of people love it, and the same number hate it? | The only site that gets this right is youtube: It shows both | likes and dislikes. | wmichelin wrote: | I believe they're playing around with removing dislikes | | Source: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/30/22358992/youtube- | hiding-d... | elboru wrote: | > The only site that gets this right is youtube: It shows both | likes and dislikes. | | That might change soon: | https://mobile.twitter.com/YouTube/status/137694248659415040... | amelius wrote: | Speaking of shortcomings, how do people remove their account | including all of their comments? | | (Not saying that I want to remove my account of course, but | perhaps one day I might) | | EDIT: some discussion on this topic appeared here: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16898422 | jerrac wrote: | I initially loved the idea of voting posts up and down. Thanks to | seeing how it actually works on SO and here, well, I am not much | of a fan anymore. | | At the very least, if I ever implemented it myself, I'd require | that people explain why they are voting up, or voting down, | before they could vote. And I'd not limit users from being able | to vote until they magically get to the right amount of "karma". | | Without requiring an explanation, votes are more akin to boos and | cheers than anything useful. Not a very good way to encourage a | diverse culture. | jodrellblank wrote: | Comment and explain your downvote, you'll likely be downvoted | for doing so, or be accused of trying to be a mod, or waste | your time explaining yourself to someone who wasn't even | interested enough to post a substantial comment in the first | place. The main reason I downvote is "low quality comment" | which is subjective and I don't want to enter into a debate | about arguing that it is against the author arguing that it | isn't; it's a _voting_ system, I vote, you vote, we all vote, | and a consensus comes from that. I don 't want it to be "my | judgement is better than everyone elses", I want it to be my | vote among many. | | (Or rather, I _do_ want it to be "my judgement is better than | everyone elses, and I want to be able to delete other people's | comments", and I recognise that's bad, and that a vote system | limits the maximum damage I can do to one vote per comment). | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | Yeah, I _really_ wish that HN required you to comment in order | to downvote. Or even just required that a comment had replies | before it could be downvoted; I don 't care so much that every | single person justifies their downvote as that the person | getting downvoted gets an explanation. | whymauri wrote: | I like that a comment requires at least one comment before a | downvote. Maybe not a comment for each downvote, since that | might encourage dogpiling. Imagine a new user makes a social | faux pas and suddenly receives ~4 relatively negative | comments. | genericone wrote: | That only incentivizes people who have all the time in the | world to disagree on the internet. Most users with expertise | just don't have that kind of mental-bandwidth to spare. Just | as it is not worth your time to get into a verbal argument | with flat-earthers, its not worth your time to comment on | most posts that you disagree with. | CSSer wrote: | I initially really liked this idea. I think the only problem | is that it could lead to requiring more moderation. It's very | hard to enforce quality. Right now I'm imagining a bandwagon | chain of "You suck!" or other low quality comments just for | the price of downvoting. I guess you could impose a minimum | character requirement. At any rate, the idea of it being | visible only to the user being downvoted is somewhat novel as | well. | jerrac wrote: | Having to work harder at moderation seems acceptable to me. | And it'd be fairly simple to implement a "You can't just | say 'you suck' when downvoting. If you do, you lose your | downvoting privileges permanently." policy. | mjevans wrote: | Removing content from a discussion IS moderation. That's | why the idea is tying a 'reason for moderation' (the reply, | or any reply existing at all at least) to the moderation | action. | | Such a moderation comment might be anything, but the more | egregious examples: | | Illegal content (of some sort); A threat upon persons or | property (E.G.); Hate Speech; other things that a | reasonable person would agree do not belong with a | discussion; or just being Wildly off-topic. | jointpdf wrote: | I think this could backfire. Toxic/trolling comments do not | need to be dignified with a response, and requiring one may | increase the incentive to write inflammatory posts (assuming | that at least some people do this--consciously or not--to | instigate reactions). | | For well-intentioned posts that are factually incorrect, it | seems that there are usually replies that explain the reason | for the downvote. When a comment is wrongfully banished to | the grey nothingness, oftentimes others step up and defend | it. The community immune system functions well as is. | | Also, I adore the fade-to-grey side effect of the downvotes. | It's like spritzing a cat with water for scrounging on the | counters--an ultimately harmless but _super effective_ | reprimand. | jerrac wrote: | Posts like that should be flagged for moderation, not voted | on. A community site should have guidelines that everyone | can reference, and if something is in violation, there | should be a way to flag that post. | Miraste wrote: | > Not a very good way to encourage a diverse culture | | I'd guess that's the point - giving power over visibility to | users who've proved themselves in line with the forum zeitgeist | helps maintain a site's culture as-is and prevent it | "diversifying" into Smaller Facebook #50691. | jerrac wrote: | To expand on my thoughts a bit, my goal with voting would be to | get people to actually engage with each other. That's the whole | point of a community site. Adding "points" is just a way to | encourage more engagement. | | With that in mind, I'd likely just not have downvotes period. | If something is low quality enough to deserve a downvote, then | it should be in violation of my community standards. Downvotes | are designed to stop engagement. That's not the kind of thing | I'd want unless it's something bad. | | Then maybe do something a little different with upvotes. Say | after you upvote with a comment a certain number of times, you | get access to a quick upvote option. Or canned upvote comments. | | And maybe general comments would count as an upvote unless you | uncheck the box. That way we could keep generic upvote comments | like "well thought out argument" or "he used good references" | in their own little section without stifling good interactions. | ddevault wrote: | Hacker News gets it most wrong with the flagging system, which is | ripe for abuse (and is constantly abused). I sent this to dang | some time ago, and was met with a muted response: | | I realized something interesting the other day - users gain | access to downvote comments once they reach 501 karma. I've | always inferred that this is to make it so that users cannot | downvote until they have demonstrated some understanding of the | community and an ability to fit in with its norms. | | However... users get access to flagging at 31 karma. A flag is | basically a super downvote in several respects: | | - It works on comments and posts | | - It works on direct replies to your own comments | | - Just a few flags is enough to remove content entirely | | - A flagged post cannot be vouched for until after it's been | removed, whereas a post can be upvoted before it's downvoted. | | It's a bit weird to me that the OP version of downvotes is | available to users 16 times sooner than the neutered version. I | feel like HN has a problem with flagging being abused for | censorship - this might provide an explanation. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-04-14 23:00 UTC)