Don't be a jerk • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't be a jerk

#101

Post by genericuser » Thu, Aug 07, 2014, 4:28 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #65

ascendantlogic wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So any rebuttal to the "it used to be so much better" trope that is trotted out every few months is now made into an example of how "bad" things have gotten?

Not at all. I'm open to rebuttals. But a good rebuttal comes with examples. It's possible to prove me wrong simply by showing a bunch of instances of how things weren't any better five years ago than today.

How would one provide an example of the general 'feel' of an environment? While everyone in support of it is using the subjective feeling that it has gotten worse, the only evidence for or against it would involve aggregating all posts over time and seeing how the various averages worked out.

Basically you are asking for evidence of a counter theory that has never been required of the prevailing one.

Re: Don't be a jerk

#102

Post by rokhayakebe » Thu, Aug 07, 2014, 4:28 PM UTC

jedanbik wrote: post #69

I don't think there should be a downvote option. There should be an option for upvoting, and an option for flagging offensive content/content that is against the HN community guidelines. As it stands, there is no visual emphasis on high quality comments. There is a visual emphasis on low quality comments. Why is that? Apologies in advance if I am making an ignorant statement.

J, I cannot express how much I agree with you. The base logic in downvoting is so flawed it baffles me. How can you take away something from someone if you did not give it to them in the first place. Downvoting, especially without commenting, is exactly what the First Amendment was established for.

Re: Don't be a jerk

#103

Post by peterwwillis » Thu, Aug 07, 2014, 4:29 PM UTC

jedanbik wrote: post #69

I don't think there should be a downvote option. There should be an option for upvoting, and an option for flagging offensive content/content that is against the HN community guidelines. As it stands, there is no visual emphasis on high quality comments. There is a visual emphasis on low quality comments. Why is that? Apologies in advance if I am making an ignorant statement.

It already works that way (or at least, that's how downvote is supposed to be used). In terms of comment quality, there is no way to distinguish that; you can only determine positivity, not quality. And there already exists the feedback loop problem where a seemingly-high-quality comment (higher up in the stack, or made by a popular person) is more likely to be upvoted; a visual emphasis would just exacerbate this behavior.

Re: Don't be a jerk

#104

Post by boomlinde » Thu, Aug 07, 2014, 4:46 PM UTC

chrisBob wrote: post #66

increment_i wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly agree. Downvoting people simply because you disagree with their viewpoint is an abomination. It should be a tool for discouraging abusive language or non-constructive discourse that doesn't add value to a conversation. I've been downvoted many times simply because I expressed a perfectly valid opinion that someone simply didn't like.

Unless you are sensitive about the karma score then downvoting, or upvoting to determine where a viewpoint falls in the thread seems valid. Personally, I upvote comments that I strongly agree with, and I don't think someone downvoting ones they disagree with is that big a jump.

There doesn't seem to be an expressly specified code around voting, and I suspect that this might be a deliberate attempt to let the community decide out of unspoken consensus. When concern about the basis of a vote is expressed, it's often made clear that the grounds for up voting and down voting are not symmetrical. I can't decide if I think that they should be or if it doesn't matter.

I'd really like to see a list of controversial posts (many votes in both direction) to determine whether they are mostly matters of agreement/disagreement or if there is usually some less personal ground (e.g. expressing a factually wrong but popularly held belief, differing opinions on what adds to the discussion or not etc.)

Re: Don't be a jerk

#105

Post by MilnerRoute » Thu, Aug 07, 2014, 4:48 PM UTC

bane wrote: post #75

krapp wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the fix is simple - don't start fading out downvoted comments until a certain threshold of negativity has been reached. I think the visual 'reward' of being able to silence a commenter without effort or reply contributes a great deal to the noisy and petty nature of initial downvotes.

I've long thought that downvotes should require a comment. Perhaps a better idea is that dowvotes past a certain threshold require a comment. I know I've been downvoted in the past for various innocent comments and have no idea why the groupthink thought that comment in particular had to die. As has been observed here before, downvotes are often a normative function of the groupthink. But unless corrective action is…

I think that's a great idea. Yes, anonymity is required so people can speak freely without fear of retribution. But you have to also consider what it's like to be the recipient of those anonymous actions...

People care about this community, and they're sharing their opinions in good faith -- they're putting themselves out there. So I think a downvote should require at least an equal commitment -- maybe a downvote with an (anonymous?) comment of explanation....

Maybe the downvote-with-comment could also be downvoted (with that new downvote affecting the karma of the original anonymous down-voter?)

Re: Don't be a jerk

#106

Post by nilkn » Thu, Aug 07, 2014, 4:50 PM UTC

chrisBob wrote: post #66

increment_i wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly agree. Downvoting people simply because you disagree with their viewpoint is an abomination. It should be a tool for discouraging abusive language or non-constructive discourse that doesn't add value to a conversation. I've been downvoted many times simply because I expressed a perfectly valid opinion that someone simply didn't like.

Unless you are sensitive about the karma score then downvoting, or upvoting to determine where a viewpoint falls in the thread seems valid. Personally, I upvote comments that I strongly agree with, and I don't think someone downvoting ones they disagree with is that big a jump.

People are sensitive about karma scores. Moreover, this site actually grays out downvoted comments, sometimes to the point that they're nearly unreadable. This is not consistent with the premise that votes are just to accumulate the distribution of opinions on a topic.

Re: Don't be a jerk

#107

Post by streptomycin » Thu, Aug 07, 2014, 4:52 PM UTC

gadders wrote: post #79

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On certain topics, HN always had a downvote problem for certain contrarian opinions. For example, heaven forbid you didn't think everything Apple produced when Steve Jobs was alive was a gift from heaven Also see: Snowden is not a hero, Piracy is not ok & The NSA snooping is not so bad.

I'd add anything negative about Aaron Schwartz to the list.

Only after he died. Before then, HN wasn't too thrilled with his tactics.

Re: Don't be a jerk

#108

Post by jack-r-abbit » Thu, Aug 07, 2014, 4:56 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #95

jack-r-abbit wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. I have been truly baffled more than once by a downvote on a comment. The first time it happened I made the mistake of asking why... and that one got downvoted even more. Strange.

Of course, questioning and complaining about downvotes is considered a downvotable offense here, since doing so doesn't contribute to the intellectual quality of the conversation. So that behavior is kind of encouraged in a way. Strange that the effect of downvoting itself isn't also considered a form of noise. I don't know whether requiring comments for downvotes would help though - presumably if someone were willin…

Questioning a downvote in an attempt to learn should not be downvoted... as it does contribute to the overall intellectual quality of the site. There are some very clear reasons for some comments to get downvoted. But some comments get downvotes for no obvious reason. Complaining about them is not helpful.

I don't think requiring a comment to downvote would work either. Of course if people did comment things like "idiot" and "shill", then those comments would rightly be downvoted for name-calling and personal attacks. That would just be a mess.

Re: Don't be a jerk

#109

Post by ColinWright » Thu, Aug 07, 2014, 4:57 PM UTC

korzun wrote: post #97

amitparikh wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In general, I agree with you. The nature of internet commenting is such. There should be no expectation that the parent comment will continue to live -- the comment itself should be considered "owned" by the original poster, who has the prerogative to delete it. But that shouldn't be an excuse for any of us to refrain from providing feedback, insight, and advice online. In fact, we should continue to do so with the u…

Agreed. But if you are giving advice you should not do it because you expect a thank you. While you might think your advice is 'good', other people might not. Nobody will thank you for bad advice. There are way too many factors when it comes to communication on the internet. Not everything falls under 'he did not thank me BECAUSE he is a jerk'. Etc.

So if you ask a direct and explicit question, and someone takes the time to provide a factually correct answer, you think it's then OK not to acknowledge in any way, manner, means, or form, that they spent time providing you with the knowledge that you had requested?

Re: Don't be a jerk

#110

Post by nanoscopic » Thu, Aug 07, 2014, 5:00 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #12

It seems like this is an instance of a more general trend: The commenting ecosystem is in decline. It's better than Reddit, but it's a shadow of what it once was. I've noticed downvotes are trending now. The downvotes do correct themselves... most of the time. But there's a lot more frivolous downvoting due to the influx of people that have attained downvote privileges but haven't really shunned the mindset of other…

Hacker news mods have repeatedly said that they only respect professionalism, and they intentionally ban people they feel are controversial to a strong degree. So long as this is true, you are going to lose the passionate 1% of the community. The passionate 1% are those who keep the rest of the riff raff in check ultimately.

As far as I am concerned, "Do you want X? This is how you get X."

If Hacker News wants to have people care, it has to allow differing and terrible opinions. This is the very basis of the notion of freedom and free speech. When you censor the community, the community will suffer.

Note that upvoting and downvoting, especially when done via groups of people determined to make their comments be heard, can itself tend to become a type of censorship ( mass downvoting ). Votes should be purely for the benefit of the original authors of the comments being voted on; not to move content around.