Live data from Hacker News

The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

stackoverflow.blog

51–60 of 475 posts

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#51
post #31

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?

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.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#52
post #28

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.

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?

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#53
post #19

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…

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.

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.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#55

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 mo…

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.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#56
post #19

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…

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.

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.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#57
post #23

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=…

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.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#59
post #43
post #23

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=…

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 t…

> 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

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#60

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 mo…

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…

> "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.

Post reply on HN