The Zen of HN • Hacker News Board

Re: The Zen of HN

#11

Post by pygy » Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 4:40 PM UTC

mcav wrote: post #4

cool-RR wrote: post #3

I don't think downvotes should be used for disagreeing.

Right; that was intended to mean that people sometimes use them for disagreement, despite that they probably shouldn't. Any thoughts on a better wording?

Actually, there should be no correlations between votes and agreement.

Upvotes should reward civil comments that feed the conversation constructively.

Aggressivity, and empty posts ("cheerleaders", etc.) should be downvoted.

Flags are for grossly offensive or illegal content.

That was the original intent IIRC: encouraging civil conversation. Tying votes with agreement leads to groupthink. We should encourage diversity unless we want to become a close-minded community, reinforcing it's own biases.

Re: The Zen of HN

#12

Post by thras » Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 4:40 PM UTC

cool-RR wrote: post #9

thras wrote: post #5

Personally, I always downvote based upon human worth. Upvotes? Only if I think you're hot.

I think not many people feel attracted to you right now.

I know. My self-appraisal of my own human worth just went down the toilet.

Re: The Zen of HN

#13

Post by Retric » Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 4:41 PM UTC

cool-RR wrote: post #3

I don't think downvotes should be used for disagreeing.

Once a comment is +5 or higher. I think down votes can record peoples disagreement without cluttering the page. This can counter people up voting into the strataphere because they agree rather than because the comment has merit.

Re: The Zen of HN

#14

Post by notaddicted » Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 4:51 PM UTC

cool-RR wrote: post #3

I don't think downvotes should be used for disagreeing.

I think they should be used for disagreeing with things that are wrong.

Re: The Zen of HN

#15

Post by anuraggoel » Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 4:55 PM UTC

You could add something to the effect of 'say nothing you wouldn't say to our face'.

Re: The Zen of HN

#16

Post by gamache » Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 5:03 PM UTC

_cbsz wrote: post #8

Ironically, this article violates its urge to "meta-discuss sparingly" by meta-discussing for a whole article. (Attempts to point out the same irony in this comment will suffer from the same problem.)

I think the article counts as "sparing".

Re: The Zen of HN

#17

Post by swombat » Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 5:13 PM UTC

mcav wrote: post #4

cool-RR wrote: post #3

I don't think downvotes should be used for disagreeing.

Right; that was intended to mean that people sometimes use them for disagreement, despite that they probably shouldn't. Any thoughts on a better wording?

Upvotes mark value

Downvotes mark lack of value

Downvotes should be far more rare than upvotes

Re: The Zen of HN

#18

Post by trjordan » Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 5:15 PM UTC

pygy wrote: post #11

mcav wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right; that was intended to mean that people sometimes use them for disagreement, despite that they probably shouldn't. Any thoughts on a better wording?

Actually, there should be no correlations between votes and agreement. Upvotes should reward civil comments that feed the conversation constructively. Aggressivity, and empty posts ("cheerleaders", etc.) should be downvoted. Flags are for grossly offensive or illegal content. That was the original intent IIRC: encouraging civil conversation. Tying votes with agreement leads to groupthink. We should encourage diversit…

This is true, but I think mcav's point was that this is not how they're used. People should do this, but when you're on the receiving end of votes, you should remember this to explain why you got them.

Re: The Zen of HN

#19

Post by CGamesPlay » Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 5:54 PM UTC

cool-RR wrote: post #3

I don't think downvotes should be used for disagreeing.

When does one get the privilege of downvoting?

Re: The Zen of HN

#20

Post by pygy » Mon, Jun 22, 2009, 5:57 PM UTC

trjordan wrote: post #18

pygy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there should be no correlations between votes and agreement. Upvotes should reward civil comments that feed the conversation constructively. Aggressivity, and empty posts ("cheerleaders", etc.) should be downvoted. Flags are for grossly offensive or illegal content. That was the original intent IIRC: encouraging civil conversation. Tying votes with agreement leads to groupthink. We should encourage diversit…

This is true, but I think mcav's point was that this is not how they're used. People should do this, but when you're on the receiving end of votes, you should remember this to explain why you got them.

It's easy to take the "upvote what you like" shortcut, I do

These principles are (were?) pg's whishes regarding comment threads. As time passes, the proportion of people who had been directly exposed to these ideas dimishes. The previous post was intended to them (and as a reminder for the rest of us, me included).