New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity • Hacker News Board

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#421

Post by cpncrunch » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 12:35 AM UTC

acheron wrote: post #402

cpncrunch wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A related issue is people downvoting comments that they haven't properly comprehended. Instead of asking "why do you think x" or "do you mean x" they just downvote the comment. Sometimes it happens with controversial comments, even when the controversial comment is based on facts. Sometimes going against HN groupthink (e.g. saying something bad about libertarianism) results in downvotes. EDIT: I'm surprised that I go…

Off topic, but the idea that the HN "groupthink" is libertarian seems ridiculous to me... Other than the NSA stuff which is superficially libertarian, I don't see it at all. The prevailing attitude here is sort of vague lefty-"liberal", basically what you'd expect from, well, a bunch of college students and recent graduates who don't take politics too seriously and live in places like SF and NYC.

I'm talking about things like not wanting to be searched at the airport, not wanting any NSA surveillance or spying, not wanting copyright theft to be illegal, etc. Libertarian seems a more correct word to describe these positions than liberal, as the common theme is distrust of authority.

I find it a little ironic that your comment was downvoted, even though your comment was a very reasonably presented and valid opinion. I just upvoted you. Another example of the problem with the downvote button.

IMO there is no need at all for a downvote button -- it just causes more problems than it ever solves. Much better to just have a 'flag' button for abusive/inappropriate comments, and an upvote button.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#422

Post by abalone » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 12:37 AM UTC

corysama wrote: post #405

mbesto wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps what abalone is referring to is anything seemingly positive that doesn't add any value to the discussion should also be pointed out. In other words, gratuitous comments in general, positive or negative, should not be supported. For example, we see lots of "XYZ just raised $10mil" on here and the comment section is littered with "Congrats Jim!". Should we not be downvoting those too so we keep the consistency…

> the comment section is littered with "Congrats Jim!". Should we not be downvoting those too That is a good example of an edge case. It's already pretty accepted that "Nice article!" comments should be downvoted as noise. "Congrats Jim!" is pretty much noise as well. The difference is that "Nice article!" can be a very, very common occurrence if it's not moderated because it can occur in pretty much any post. Wherea…

You're right, "congrats Jim" is an edge case, but so are the cases of "this sucks" or "commenter $foo doesn't like this" one-liners. That's a complete straw man. That stuff, as you note, already gets downvoted.

Sam is targeting something else. The post is wading into the realm of "gratuitous" negativity (or "unwarranted", to use tptacek's equally slippery qualifier), which is not necessarily just brief, unsupported stuff. It's clear I think that Sam is getting at the disheartening feeling that entrepreneurs can experience when facing a withering critique of a nascent project.

We want a supportive community but a withering critique can actually help ideas get better. This guideline is ill-defined and could be interpreted as "tone it down, folks". And paired with a move towards community moderation, it's all about interpretation.

This guideline would be better redefined around clearer, more concrete criteria.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#423

Post by MaulingMonkey » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 12:39 AM UTC

dsugarman wrote: post #15

I 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've heard of communities improving when downvoting was added as an option, and deteriorating when downvoting was added as an option. I've also been along for the ride for the former, and then the community revolt when they tried to remove it in a forum upgrade (it was later re-added.)

> It's an awful experience

It can be, if taken the wrong way. It's important to stress that one shouldn't get too freaked out over losing some meaningless internet points over what may have very well been a misclick. Keeping this in mind, it has not been an awful experience for me when I've been downvoted. I wouldn't even say it's been a bad experience for me.

> Most people use to show they disagree with a comment.

I think this is only true when the reasoning or tone is poor - or at least that's the only case the negatives outweigh the positives. I've seen exceedingly few downvotes when I've disagreed and argued here on HN.

As an extreme example, I've seen a thread advocating Cannibalism in a serious tone gain rating, due to it's solid reasoning and proper treatment of the pros and cons of the matter. More typical topics behave similarly - constructive, well reasoned disagreement gains more points than it looses. This on a forum unlike HN - in that, I believe, you could downvote immediately upon account creation.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#424

Post by kimdouglasmason » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 12:41 AM UTC

Rah Rah Rah! If your startup is not winning, just pivot, and be positive enough, and you will inevitably win. Selection bias doesn't exist and was made up by negative Nancys.

Seriously though, stick a fork in HN. It's over. Enjoy the echo chamber that this place will inevitably become.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#425

Post by obstinate » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 12:44 AM UTC

CodeMage wrote: post #315

mreiland wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think you nailed the real problem, which is that people have become so quick to write off anyone who ruffles their feathers at all. I'm quick to write off people and I won't apologize for it. I have better things to do with my time than to give everyone the same amount of time and respect. If HN has decided to be touchy feely than this most certainly isn't the place for me. I prefer actual discourse where bullshi…

edit: shit you guys, can't you go with the reading my comment charitably or will you hit that downvote button again, thereby showing your hypocrisy? I think you misunderstood the new guideline. My takeaway was that people should try to interpret things charitably and not react blindly and impulsively, especially when their reaction is to write a comment. I can't find anything in the guideline that suggests that peopl…

There are always going to be those times when the most charitable reasonable interpretation is still incredibly bad.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#426

Post by kimdouglasmason » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 12:45 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #69

krapp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Trolls aside, everyone thinks their negativity is completely appropriate...

You're right. A corollary is that gratuitous negativity is largely unintentional. That's why we're asking community members to be more active in gently reminding each other when the line is being crossed. Gently!

What line? It's so bloody arbitrary as to be a useless guideline. It's about as meaningful as 'be nice'.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#427

Post by feybay » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 12:48 AM UTC

dman wrote: post #26

dsugarman wrote: post #15

I 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 agree with this. Conflating disagreement with downvoting seems to be mixing unrelated concerns. It is currently inconvenient (in karma terms) to hold dissenting opinions.

I feel like two separate point counters for each post would work best. One for well thought out post, and one for disagreement. They wouldn't affect each others score, and only the positive point counter would determine the ranking of the score.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#428

Post by washadjeffmad » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 12:52 AM UTC

frostmatthew wrote: post #328

tptacek wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true if you assume that every feature moves the community forward. But not all of them do; many features regress us. For instance: unlike on Reddit, there's no indication when someone's responded to one of your questions. As a result, very few arguments last more than a few hours here. I'm particularly leery of collapsible threads, although my understanding is we're about to get them anyways.

> I'm particularly leery of collapsible threads May I ask why? As someone who considers that the one change/improvement I'd like to see on HN I'm curious what there is to be leery of that I may not have considered.

Because this isn't like reddit where the most upvoted comments are elevated in otherwise collapsed threads. I've only read some of the most insightful and interesting comments and discussions on HN buried most of the way down the page because they were available for me to see despite their lack of being voted on. On HN, popularity isn't valuable, the ideas are, and non-precollapsed threads support that.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#429

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 12:53 AM UTC

frostmatthew wrote: post #328

tptacek wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true if you assume that every feature moves the community forward. But not all of them do; many features regress us. For instance: unlike on Reddit, there's no indication when someone's responded to one of your questions. As a result, very few arguments last more than a few hours here. I'm particularly leery of collapsible threads, although my understanding is we're about to get them anyways.

> I'm particularly leery of collapsible threads May I ask why? As someone who considers that the one change/improvement I'd like to see on HN I'm curious what there is to be leery of that I may not have considered.

[deleted]

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#430

Post by decisiveness » Sat, Apr 04, 2015, 12:56 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #398

ianstallings wrote: post #394

Using HN guidelines Linus Torvalds is a terrible person and wouldn't be allowed to post here for very long before he was hell banned. Maybe the issue isn't so much negativity as it is sensitivity .

> Using HN guidelines Linus Torvalds is a terrible person HN guidelines do not address whether a person is good or bad (or "terrible"). > and wouldn't be allowed to post here for very long before he was hell banned. You assume that Torvalds, if he choose to participate in HN, would apply the same mode of interaction he applies in different contexts with different expectations. While, certainly, there are people who a…

>Or maybe the issue is that what lots of people want out of HN isn't the same kind of environment in which the actions of Torvalds to which you are obliquely referring occur.

The actions of Torvalds, though brash, are respected not because of his accomplishments, but because his assertions are usually quite valid. Many of us can learn from not discarding useful counterpoints simply because of how colorfully or insultingly they are delivered.