Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

stackoverflow.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 475 posts

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

#161

Post by tpmx »

wvenable wrote: post #131
dmos62 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

#162

Post by DoreenMichele »

bena wrote: post #127
DoreenMichele wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 appa…

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.

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

#163

Post by pixl97 »

renewiltord wrote: post #42
elhudy wrote: post #8

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 dow…

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.

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'

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

#164

Post by artificialLimbs »

CDRdude wrote: post #102
benlivengood wrote: post #40

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. Fo…

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 ‘insightf…

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.

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

#166

Post by jonnycomputer »

josephg wrote: post #156
jonnycomputer wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people just use it to signal disagreement. I just did so now.

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…

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.

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

#167

Post by benlivengood »

CDRdude wrote: post #102
benlivengood wrote: post #40

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. Fo…

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 ‘insightf…

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.

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

#168

Post by wvenable »

tpmx wrote: post #161
wvenable wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

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

#169

Post by Tenoke »

II2II wrote: post #152
Tenoke wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

#170

Post by Debug_Overload »

amznthrwaway wrote: post #106
Tenoke wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 u…

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.
Post reply on HN