Kind reminder: please (re)read the HN guidelines

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Aug 30, 2010, 11:54 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #91

Alex3917 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far too often comments asking for a cite are voted up and comments that don't provide cites are voted down, even when the cite is trivially findable via Google. Take this thread for instance: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1552233 Regardless of whether I deserved to be downvoted, there is zero reason for the person asking for a cite to get upvoted considering the the relevant article is literally the first Googl…

I can't speak for other readers of HN, but I often ask those questions after seeing that Google points to unreliable sources without scientific editing. I'd expect someone who RELIES on a fact being true knowing how to check that fact with more than just Google.

Post by billswift » Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 12:21 AM UTC

uxp wrote: post #41

revorad wrote: post #28

One question I ask myself now before commenting is: Will this comment significantly improve this conversation? I try not to comment if the comment is merely: 1. clever and amusing 2. expressing anger/disagreement 3. disproving a wrong but unimportant claim made by another commenter. Besides these, submitting, upvoting, downvoting, not voting and flagging are enough to make HN more interesting for myself.

I find myself writing comments fairly often, but end up pausing before I hit the reply button to re-read what I'm replying to and to think if my comment is actually contributing to the discussion. A good percentage of the time, I just end up closing the window. I may have good intentions to begin with, but if what I say reads as being one of the three points you wrote, there's no point in having other people argue ag…

Post by TGJ » Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 12:24 AM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #64

duairc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I definitely think people a people a much more inclined to downvote for the wrong reasons. I've made a lot of posts in the last day, one of which was by far the longest post in a 200+ comment thread, none of which I think were in any way rude or anything like that, and despite that it's cost me around -10 karma overall (mostly because of one post in particular, which I don't think was that bad. A strong…

While I (obviously) don't think you deserved it, it was a very short, controversial post, with nothing backing it up. [1] And the "thanks" posts don't get downvoted because of a personal disagreement, it's that a comment that just says "awesome, thanks!" doesn't add any value to the discussion. An upvote would suffice. 1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1643726

Post by steveklabnik » Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 12:41 AM UTC

TGJ wrote: post #96

steveklabnik wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I (obviously) don't think you deserved it, it was a very short, controversial post, with nothing backing it up. [1] And the "thanks" posts don't get downvoted because of a personal disagreement, it's that a comment that just says "awesome, thanks!" doesn't add any value to the discussion. An upvote would suffice. 1: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1643726

Up votes instead of 'thanks' would seem to me to remove any kind of interaction that helps foster a community. If people knew who up voted their post then that would not be a problem.

Post by bpyne » Tue, Aug 31, 2010, 1:03 AM UTC

_cbsz wrote: post #43

bpyne wrote: post #32

As long as someone has opened up a guideline discussion.... "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." Agreed in full. However, downmodding without constructive criticism leaves the downmodded with no sense of what to improve in the next comment. A downmod could easily be due to underdeveloped point, style, or disagreement about an opinion. At least 2 of the 3 re…

So assume it's that your comment fell into the "noise" category and work harder on producing "signal" next time. We don't need to have a discussion every time someone felt that some post did not contribute sufficiently to the discussion.