The question alot of HNers ask themselves before commenting.."What can I say that makes me sound clever and better than the original poster?". The easy, lazy approach is just to find something to criticize.
Alot of insecure people on HN.
New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity
341–350 of 673 posts
Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity
#342I think the downvote functionality is holding back the utility of HN more than anything else. It is grossly overused and very rarely for guidelines violations like it was designed for. Most people use to show they disagree with a comment. It's an awful experience and is the main fuel in a negative feedback loop that travels with users from thread to thread.
pg a few years back commented: I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
I don't know if he's made another comment on this issue since then.
Shouldn't flagging a post/topic be generally used for a guideline violation?
Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity
#343Earlier quoted context omitted.
(For me) the kicker in your response was: than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect Who then, is worth of your time and/or respect? What is your criteria? Fine by me to have your opinion. But at least be able to back it up with some substance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZ017D_JOPY&t=3m15s But I honestly fall into the other camp that believes respect should be given freely. BUT that lasts until you open your mouth and say something stupid. I've had "discussions" with people about whether or not MAtz Ruby had a GIL. You don't get my respect for holding that opinion and I have better things to do with my time than worry about your feelings. There's a cl…
Above, you wrote:
I have better things to do with my time than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect.
I understand that feeling. Life is short. But why take the time to respond at all, then, dismissively or otherwise?
"A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." [1]
For me, sometimes a charitable interpretation of a "foolish" question or comment provides a framework to think about, or write about, what I see as the more salient point. Responding is optional, after all, so why not respond from the perspective of charitable discourse?
[1] Bruce Lee (!)
Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are threads where expressing a well formed, well reasoned, well supported but contrary opinion runs the risk of downvotes to greyness. The root of the problem is inevitably that the topic of the thread is a poor fit for HN at that particular point in time [and perhaps always]. A symptom of the problem is that such threads tempt so many people to express their opinion for the sake of expressing it. I get lured i…
What about topics that are important and relevant to HN but invoke a polarised opinion on HN? My concerns can be summarized into a single question - If HN had existed historically with the rules as they exist currently, would Georg Cantor have thrived in it?
I flag bad threads. To me if a thread is producing bad behavior then it's bad. Most of the threads that fall into the category of important and bad are posted for discussion elsewhere.
Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
so says the censor, so it must be true.
I was struggling to define exactly what is meant by "gratuitous negativity", so thank you for giving what I think is a perfect example. It'd be great if you could answer the following questions about your comment to I think really get to the heart of the matter: What were you trying to accomplish with your comment? In what way does your comment move the conversation forward? What are possible useful responses to your…
Interesting that you perceive this as "gratuitous negativity" as that was not my intention. answers to your questions:
1) pointing out that you shouldn't always believe those in positions of power, especially when they are attempting to control the narrative. you may not know this, but dang works for HN and his job is literally to censor comments and articles to ensure they follow the guidelines.
2) by reminding everyone who reads it that they should think critically, not only about the words being said, but also the context in which they are said and who is saying the words.
3) there probably aren't many as it isnt meant to be responded to, so much as to be a reminder to consider who is speaking, and to take all things with a grain of salt. although your response certainly engendered me to reply. but just because it is difficult to respond doesn't mean it isn't a useful contribution.
Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity
#346The English would tackle this problem by asking people to be nice. The Americans would tackle this by policing, punishment and penalties. The cold war communists of the 1950s by forcing the community to watch each other and report offenders.
Reminds me of this shirt[1] from Casanovas in Makawao, HI:
Heaven is where the police are British, the chefs are Italian, the Mechanics German, the lovers French and it is all organized by the Swiss.
Hell is where the police are German, the chefs British, the mechanics French, the lovers Swiss and it is all organized by the Italians.
[1] http://www.happyhotelier.com/2008/06/01/quote-of-the-day-no-...
Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity
#347I think the downvote functionality is holding back the utility of HN more than anything else. It is grossly overused and very rarely for guidelines violations like it was designed for. Most people use to show they disagree with a comment. It's an awful experience and is the main fuel in a negative feedback loop that travels with users from thread to thread.
I would like downvoting to require an explanation. It could be a single-line text box with the label "Explain why". If you're serious about downvoting, it's no trouble to type in a short explanation such as "incorrect", "not funny", "obvious troll", "unnecessarily rude". (Those seem to be some typical reasons for downvotes.) And if you're not quite sure why you're downvoting, having to explain would certainly serve a…
I don't see an existing problem that this would in any way make better.
Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity
#348It isn't so much the negative comments that bug me as much as the downvoting with no explanation.
Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity
#349I think the downvote functionality is holding back the utility of HN more than anything else. It is grossly overused and very rarely for guidelines violations like it was designed for. Most people use to show they disagree with a comment. It's an awful experience and is the main fuel in a negative feedback loop that travels with users from thread to thread.
I have noticed this too and have a humble suggestion: down-votes should require a comment from the down-voter. This would have the following advantages:
- The extra effort will slow down causal unthoughtful down-votes.
- If there is no justification, the down-voter can be down-voted in turn presumably by a greater degree.
- Any pattern of abuse can easily be seen in user profiles.
Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity
#350Negative comments based on reason are the reason why I keep checking HN comments. Those comments are valuable because trade offs are rarely shown than benefits. However those interesting comments are often downvoted with spinal reflex.