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

The Zen of HN

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 50 posts

Re: The Zen of HN

#31

Post by jodrellblank »

gojomo wrote: post #24
pygy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there should be no correlations between votes and agreement. Upvotes should reward civil comments that feed the conversation constructively. Aggressivity, and empty posts ("cheerleaders", etc.) should be downvoted. Flags are for grossly offensive or illegal content. That was the original intent IIRC: encouraging civil conversation. Tying votes with agreement leads to groupthink. We should encourage diversit…

I totally agree that you've described the ideal. Unfortunately, with the UI and people's natural tendencies, it's unavoidable that votes be used for quick-and-easy agreement/disagreement. And there's a certain alluring efficiency to it: once there's a couplet of opposed viewpoints, just weigh in with your "vote". That's what "votes" are for in a democracy, right? The habit of only using downvotes to signal disagreeme…

Unfortunately, with the UI and people's natural tendencies, it's unavoidable that votes be used for quick-and-easy agreement/disagreement.

At the moment yes, but why not:

Agree/Disagree Good contribution/Poor Contribution.

Instead of just up/down.

Re: The Zen of HN

#32

Post by three14 »

IsaacSchlueter wrote: post #29
mcav wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right; that was intended to mean that people sometimes use them for disagreement, despite that they probably shouldn't. Any thoughts on a better wording?

Regardless of what anyone tries to say about what anyone should or shouldn't do, we're always going to use downvotes for disagreement. The up and down arrows are ambiguous, and we'll tend to use "up" to mean "I like this", and "down" to mean "I don't like this". Generally, people tend to like opinions that they agree with, and dislike opinions that they don't agree with. I think it's better to accept this and live wi…

We could still discourage voting to show agreement or disagreement, even if sometimes people won't actually pay attention to the guidelines in the hopes of having better discussions.

If you had only one upvote, given the choice, would you give it to a comment that just says "me too" to an idea you agree with, or a well thought out comment arguing with that idea?

Re: The Zen of HN

#34

Post by gojomo »

jodrellblank wrote: post #31
gojomo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree that you've described the ideal. Unfortunately, with the UI and people's natural tendencies, it's unavoidable that votes be used for quick-and-easy agreement/disagreement. And there's a certain alluring efficiency to it: once there's a couplet of opposed viewpoints, just weigh in with your "vote". That's what "votes" are for in a democracy, right? The habit of only using downvotes to signal disagreeme…

Unfortunately, with the UI and people's natural tendencies, it's unavoidable that votes be used for quick-and-easy agreement/disagreement. At the moment yes, but why not: Agree/Disagree Good contribution/Poor Contribution. Instead of just up/down.

Yes, that's exactly what I've suggested before:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=214521

I know it'd be a challenge to work in without clutter/confusion, but by -- (1) achieving some visual separation from up/down (perhaps by placing to the right, or near 'reply'); (2) keeping it faded/invisible until mouseover; (3) displaying the total subtly, as with a sparkline -- I think it could work.

The controls on Twitter web pages for favorite/reply/delete are an example of the state-of-the-art for unobtrusive per-item operational controls.

Re: The Zen of HN

#36

Post by tlrobinson »

Retric wrote: post #13
cool-RR wrote: post #3

I don't think downvotes should be used for disagreeing.

Once a comment is +5 or higher. I think down votes can record peoples disagreement without cluttering the page. This can counter people up voting into the strataphere because they agree rather than because the comment has merit.

Oops, I just upvoted your comment because I agree with you. Someone please counter balance with a downvote.

Re: The Zen of HN

#37

Post by frossie »

swombat wrote: post #17
mcav wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right; that was intended to mean that people sometimes use them for disagreement, despite that they probably shouldn't. Any thoughts on a better wording?

Upvotes mark value Downvotes mark lack of value Downvotes should be far more rare than upvotes

My internal version:

Upvotes mark signal Donwnvotes mark noise

That said, I do think I have a non-linear response. If I see a comment at -1 which I think has genuine signal I upvote it, even if I completely disagree with the point made. However if the same comment is at +10 I will not upvote it if I don't agree with it.

I am more worried about the duplicates though, I wish there was an easier way to figure out you are submitting a duplicate story besides conducting a prior search. Something like "Thank you for your submission, here are some stories from HN with the same keywords in the last few months, are you sure you want to go ahead?" would be nice.

Re: The Zen of HN

#38

Post by ErrantX »

anuraggoel wrote: post #15

You could add something to the effect of 'say nothing you wouldn't say to our face'.

perhaps "say nothing rude you wouldn't say to my face".

There are lots of constructing things you can contribute here which you might not want to say to someone in a live debate (Im thinking, for example, the drugs discussion that went on a while back) :D

Re: The Zen of HN

#39

Post by quizbiz »

swombat wrote: post #17
mcav wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right; that was intended to mean that people sometimes use them for disagreement, despite that they probably shouldn't. Any thoughts on a better wording?

Upvotes mark value Downvotes mark lack of value Downvotes should be far more rare than upvotes

We perceive what we agree with to be of higher value. Confirmation bias.

Re: The Zen of HN

#40

Post by PieSquared »

jodrellblank wrote: post #31
gojomo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree that you've described the ideal. Unfortunately, with the UI and people's natural tendencies, it's unavoidable that votes be used for quick-and-easy agreement/disagreement. And there's a certain alluring efficiency to it: once there's a couplet of opposed viewpoints, just weigh in with your "vote". That's what "votes" are for in a democracy, right? The habit of only using downvotes to signal disagreeme…

Unfortunately, with the UI and people's natural tendencies, it's unavoidable that votes be used for quick-and-easy agreement/disagreement. At the moment yes, but why not: Agree/Disagree Good contribution/Poor Contribution. Instead of just up/down.

I like this idea. I think the clearest way to do this would be to have an Agree and Disagree link, which led you to a page with a reply textbox and a confirm button. If you wrote a reply, it would post it as a reply; otherwise, it could just count it as an agree/disagree thing, like facebook does it. (Then, next to the first line of each post, it could say "5 Agree; 2 Disagree" or something like that.)

That way, agreement/disagreement and good/bad are separated, and displayed nicely.

Post reply on HN