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

New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 673 posts

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#461

Post by skwirl »

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.

My experience has been that my comments that are posted to disagree with highly upvoted (often top) comments have been my most upvoted comments. I feel like most people on HN disagree with a comment by upvoting a counterargument, which causes a back-and-forth flow to a thread where the strongest counterargument to each reply is the top child reply. This flow is what often makes threads here great.

I'm actually surprised to see people here complaining about downvotes being used to disagree with comments. A large chunk of HN users can't even downvote. And I can't remember the last time I saw a gray comment that wasn't gray for a really good reason.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#465

Post by malandrew »

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.

Weird. My experience has been the exact opposite. Rarely do I get downvoted for comments merely because people disagree with it. It happens, but often enough for it to be a problem. IMHO, the benefits from seeing unconstructive comments downvoted has been more beneficial than the damage done from the occasional good comment that gets downvoted because someone disagrees.

At the end of the day, a good comment will always get more upvotes based on its perceived quality than downvotes from people mis-using the downvote feature. I credit this to the fact that you only get downvoting privileges at 500 points, at which point, you've been around long enough to have a sense of the HN culture. At 500 points, you feel like you're receiving a great power that comes with great responsibility.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#466

Post by deciplex »

skwirl wrote: post #461
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.

My experience has been that my comments that are posted to disagree with highly upvoted (often top) comments have been my most upvoted comments. I feel like most people on HN disagree with a comment by upvoting a counterargument, which causes a back-and-forth flow to a thread where the strongest counterargument to each reply is the top child reply. This flow is what often makes threads here great. I'm actually surpri…

> I'm actually surprised to see people here complaining about downvotes being used to disagree with comments.

It is quite common and gets really annoying after a while. Some of my comments in the past have broken the rules. Fine - downvote those. But quite a lot of them have most certainly not, and were written in all earnestness with intention of productive dialogue. And too many of those were still downvoted to a very light shade of grey within 30 minutes of being posted - without a single reply to indicate exactly what anyone's problem with such a post could possibly be, and therefore no hope of improvement (or even any real indication that improvement is needed in the first place).

When I read through threads, I see that I'm not the only one this happens to. And for the record (since this always comes up), no I don't care if they usually get voted back up eventually anyway.

I think it's the greying-out that's the worst. As though the rest of this community needs to be protected from the substance of your post, because a few randoms downvoted your post after they concluded you weren't capitalist enough, or were too capitalist, or think hip new framework X is rubbish, or that a blog post really was just poorly written and not worth reading, etc. It is a subtle aggression perpetrated by the forum software against every user here, and it contributes more to negativity than any single post ever could.

And, it's something that the mods here take special pains to totally ignore even when you bring it up in a direct reply to them discussing meta issues on the forum, multiple times over several months.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#467

Post by malandrew »

cheald wrote: post #251
dman wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try saying anything critical about Apple and see if this strategy works out in practice.

Well, I just checked, and my last comment critical of Apple (and not even charitably so) is currently at +97 karma, so I'm not quite sure the argument holds much weight.

Exactly. Doing a poor job of critiquing Apple will garner downvotes. Writing a well-reasoned and supported argument critiquing Apple will get upvotes.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#468

Post by cdr »

hyperpallium wrote: post #279
wamatt wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment brings to mind the concept of the the steel man [1][2] . Steelmanning an argument means to go one step further. In addition to selecting the most charitable parts of another person's argument, one seeks to improve on it, by making it the best possible representation of the other persons position. From there, one can offer their own counterpoint, to this improved version. [1] https://themerelyreal.wordpre…

Theatre Sports (competitive collaborative dramatic improvisation) has the concepts of offer , accept , and block . Accepting an offer means to build on it in some way, as a real part of the scene - in the way you mean. A block is when you ignore or undermine the offer , denying it instead of building on it. There's temptation to do so for a cheap laugh. The uncharitable negativity of HN seems similar.

Sounds not dissimilar to the "bid/turn towards/turn away" terminology in Gottman relationship theory.

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#469

Post by mreiland »

chris_wot wrote: post #437
mreiland wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see the interpretation, but no, I didn't reference the guideline, I was referencing the community. This may no longer be the place for me and if that turns out to be the case I'll gladly leave. > I also think you misunderstood the point the person was making with that statement: It's harder to make helpful critical statements when people let their feathers get ruffled, decide to treat you as a hater, and then d…

You know, if you see a bullshit opinion or statement, there are ways of refuting it that don't need the level of aggression you are showing here. Here's an example: homeopathy. If someone believes in it, then you can give counter statements without calling them an idiot. You can explain that you believe it's without basis through reasoned argument, and you absolutely should show respect for the other person. You don'…

And yet, some would probably argue that refusing to engage at all shows a certain amount of respect for a person's right to have an opinion.

The issue is one of using a word that can be applied to both sides of the argument. I was quite clear from the very beginning. This is about me not wasting time on people. It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect.

Take ZenoArrow, for example. Why have I chosen to completely ignore him whilst seemingly engaging with others in this thread? Is it because he's been extra mean compared to everyone else?

Because it isn't enough to simply disagree. In ZenoArrow's case it's the arrogance of his thinking he can manipulate me into whatever direction he wants to go.

Why in the world would you bother engaging someone who is smarter than you are? It's a waste of time for all parties involved.

> To allow for innovation needs robust discussion where you freely share your wild and unorthodox thoughts in a safe environment.

You say this in a response to a subcomment of a flagged comment that attacked no person, nor idea. It simply stated that I dismiss people readily, and will continue to do so. Is that the sort of safe place for wild and unorthodox ideas, or is it only the wild and unorthodox ideas that everyone else has that's acceptable?

Re: New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

#470

Post by peterarmstrong »

How about doubleplusunpositivity?

In all seriousness, the line between a valuable piece of criticism and gratuitous negativity seems like a fine line, and one of the things I like about HN is that there is usually intelligent criticism in the comments. This seems like it goes against that...

Post reply on HN