41–50 of 63 posts
Does B include people who are factually incorrect and easily proven wrong with a simple intuitive Google search? Eg they misrepresented a fact, not presented a dissenting opinion. To me it does, and I downvote that.
I'd also say that if at that point no one else has corrected the person, you should.
How about "It's really small and right next to the upvote button and there's no way to take it back if you fat-finger it"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why downvote if it doesn't detract from the conversation? My rule of thumb is to upvote if the comment is insightful or has information I find useful. Downvote if it seems blatantly incorrect, mean, overly negative or is actively trying to make the conversation worse. Otherwise I just ignore it.
Why do you feel that something that is incorrect (even blatantly) isn't useful? I have often observed a thread where somebody ignorantly spouts something and is taught appropriately. I've learned stuff from those and left with a net positive. The original poster might never admit to being wrong, or changing his world-view, but I certainly have many times.
I draw a distinction between a person saying something I disagree with, ("I think variable foo should be 35%, not 34%") and a person being outrageously, astonishingly wrong . ("Solar roadways are a good idea." "Instagram is worth one billion dollars.")
I don't think I'd downvote your two examples, they just sound like opinions I'd politely disagree with. To me, outrageously, astonishingly wrong would be something like "the Holocaust didn't happen", "the moon landing was faked" or "Obama wasn't born in Hawaii".
I'm sort of amazed that "B" has only 12 points at this moment. I am downvoted all the time based on B. Otherwise, I'd love someone to go through my comments and find how many that fall under A or G (as I'd very much want to learn to never fall under either of these categories). Unless you think, "zzzeek posted facts that are incorrect (sure), misunderstood the person he was responding to (arguable IMHO but i often ma…
I had to go back 80 days to get to a visibly downvoted comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7733672
Which comments are downvoted for disagreement?
Simplistic rule, but that's the gist of it, from my perspective.
I draw a distinction between a person saying something I disagree with, ("I think variable foo should be 35%, not 34%") and a person being outrageously, astonishingly wrong . ("Solar roadways are a good idea." "Instagram is worth one billion dollars.")
There are plenty of reasons why Instagram may be worth $1 billion that are not outrageously, astonishingly wrong. Not least of which is because that's what Facebook paid for it two years ago. Instagram has grown significantly since then, as has FB's valuation. I'd speculate Instagram could go public today at a low multi-billion valuation.
Downvoting someone because you disagree with them is the online equlivalent of saying somebody is stupid because their views differ from yours.
I am sure I missed some perfectly reasonable answers, so please let me know. I have only ever used the downvote button a few times, mostly for reason A, but there is also at least one out there that I would take back if that were an option. I have also been downvoted myself, and I know that especially for someone with low karma it can be a real blow.
'E) I think someone said something factually incorrect' Of course, one should reply with a correction, but in reality, maybe that's not always what happens.
> C) When I upvote one thread and downvote the others my input seems twice as valuable Wait, do people actually do this? (outside of Reddit, anyways)
Even if your comments are long transparent, people need to "exert their opinion" and penalize you in aggregate.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8042707
There's a conversation where, in response to someone hailing an app developer for linking to competitors, I observed the benefits that such an action brings. I had responded to a couple of replies, and could tell as each person came through because they didn't just skip that no longer relevant, transparent conversation. No, they had to read it and then gang downvote. Which...what's the point?