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

The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

stackoverflow.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 475 posts

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#391

Post by angry_octet »

a1369209993 wrote: post #276
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that when I comment against the status quo, my comments quickly dip to -2 or lower from rapid fire downvotes, then slowly tick upward into positive territory over time as the more patient readers come through. It would be interesting to see if time-weighting the votes somehow could improve the signal. Maybe give less weight to someone who rapid-fire downvotes comments faster than they could possibly read…

> It would be interesting to see if time-weighting the votes somehow could improve the signal. Perversely, downvotes aren't available on comments older than 24 hours, but upvotes are, so comments that attract a mixture of up- and down-votes get a strong upward bias on votes they attract after a day (since the upvotes happen and the downvotes don't). Not sure how relevant that effect is to more short-term issues, thou…

Except that once enough negative votes have been received it becomes impossible to upvote. It's like sumo -- pushed too far and it goes out. However, the number is much too small, 3 or 4 downvotes.

Flagging operates similarly; as there is no reason attached to the flag it is simply 'dislike'. Slashdot's tags were much more nuanced.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#392

Post by grawprog »

Hiopl wrote: post #289
crazygringo wrote: post #198

It's kind of amusing that the entire premise of this article is undone by the aside: > update: Apparently it is possible to downvote comments, which I never realized. But while downvotes seem useful for comments where there's a lot more scope for false information, trolling, etc., I'm not sure what the additional value would be for posts -- they're either popular or not, and you can still flag posts that are actively…

I'm also baffled by his position. I often think that downvotes on HN serve to reinforce conformism to an accepted set of values and ideas. Which might be okay if, say, you want to "immunize" a community against racism, sexism or fake information, but isn't great if issues (as in politics or even in tech on a social level) are a lot more nuanced and there might be plenty of room to explore ideas off the beaten path (a…

I think the problem when it comes down to it is there's generally more than one kind of comment as well as more than one kind of reason someone downvotes.

You've got your objective factual comment

Your subjective factual comment

And your opinion based comment.

I'm probably missing some.

These can all be combined sometimes into one comment.

Then you've got your reasons for downvoting.

Disagreeing

Factually incorrect

Wrong opinion

Again, probably missing some...

When you start combining all these comment types, with downvote reasons under one generic down arrow, there's going to be some ambiguity, some good comments that get down voted, some bad comments that get upvoted and everything in between.

And...furthermore, it's impossible for other users to determine why a comment was downvoted. Maybe, they were all disagreement downvotes even if it was a factually correct statement. Maybe they were factually incorrect downvotes for a correct opinion post.

There's no real way of knowing, so in the end, better just not to worry about it either way and unless you're clearly posting something against the rules, just try again next time and write something that hopefully doesn't get downvoted.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#393

Post by 6510 »

Hiopl wrote: post #289
crazygringo wrote: post #198

It's kind of amusing that the entire premise of this article is undone by the aside: > update: Apparently it is possible to downvote comments, which I never realized. But while downvotes seem useful for comments where there's a lot more scope for false information, trolling, etc., I'm not sure what the additional value would be for posts -- they're either popular or not, and you can still flag posts that are actively…

I'm also baffled by his position. I often think that downvotes on HN serve to reinforce conformism to an accepted set of values and ideas. Which might be okay if, say, you want to "immunize" a community against racism, sexism or fake information, but isn't great if issues (as in politics or even in tech on a social level) are a lot more nuanced and there might be plenty of room to explore ideas off the beaten path (a…

I always make sure not to voice a position that goes against the HN group think. Often the discussion really needs it but why bother if it vanishes into the void(0)?

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#394

Post by zw123456 »

zw123456 wrote: post #342

I never comment on HN anymore, because, ironically, a site ostensibly promoting innovative thinking actually discourages it with mechanized "group think". And ironically I am breaking my rule to never comment, on the completely off chance the observation might sink in. FYI, the down button is right there, don't hesitate, you wouldn't dare want to ever take input that you don't completely agree with. Last post ever, n…

OK, I will try one more time, but this is super obvious.

Simple:

If you downvote you have to give a reason, you cannot simply downvote, I can write a script to downvote every post on here everyday. You have to provide a reason for the down vote, and your reason can be upvoted or downvoted, but they have to give a reason which can be up or down voted and so on.

If you up vote, you have to give a reason, and your reason can be up or down voted but that up or down vote has to have a reason that can be up or down voted and so on.

Recursion. Get it? I don't understand why a site populated but programmers did not think of it, I have suggested it like a million times and it gets down voted, again for no reason given, for all we know a bot is doing it.

It is sort of an obvious thing, I am probably not going to try again because it is just too annoying.

Good bye.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#396

Post by 6510 »

jldl805 wrote: post #377
hooande wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you don't mind my asking, why isn't it an easy thing for you to be on here?

I can't speak for the person you are talking to but this site has much less tolerance for deviation from cultural norms - which is both a good and bad thing. Compared to even niche subreddits there is much less room for "freewheeling" (can't think of a better term for it) comments. It has costs but what for what you pay, you gain in a more serious and sober environment.

Its not serious at all, its a news aggregator that by very silly means filters stuff to the top that is worth reading. Serious is when you have skilled professionals pick the topics and an interesting debate is when preferably everyone disagrees.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#397

Post by fuzzfactor »

ad404b8a372f2b9 wrote: post #36
threatofrain wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think if people want the next level of quality on technical discussion, there needs to be a gatekeeping mechanism which is concerned with technical competency. I would also expect such a place to have a magnitude or two fewer people.

I've tried that in my own community but it's a real struggle because in my experience newbies drive the conversation much more than pros so in my case gatekeeping was creating a silent community of highly skilled lurkers. With no gatekeeping, there's lots of activity and pros feel like participating once in a while with deep discussions sparked from seemingly simple questions, but on the other hand a lot of pros feel…

An approach I think is good is for pros to help visitors solve problems, using messages of interest to other pros who can also participate and it can really brainstorm in unforseen ways.

Pros learn by watching other people's problems get addressed, and contribute when it falls under their domain expertise. They interact in a positive way to form the personality of the messageboard. Which should be a reference point for an actual newbie who wants to participate long-term, but it should be expected that most visitors will not return after their problem is solved. The message board becomes a curated/community archive for solutions.

Where the subject matter and the discussion are contained within the board.

That's for a problem-solving message board.

Now HN is a tech news aggregator with comments which make it a board of a different kind, with way more diverse comments to deal with than any one news site.

And very many news sites individually are challenged to adjust to the recognized lower quality of comments the last few years by trying experimental approaches or no longer accepting comments at all.

The news is always elsewhere, only the comments are here and that makes it debatable.

Maybe there's such a thing as a problem-creating message board?

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#398

Post by kodah »

dang wrote: post #294
kodah wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a look at GP's previous comments and their contexts.

Just remember that that will only give the part of the story which is linked to that one username. Commenters who post grand narratives about why they were banned typically have a long string of past banned accounts. The giveaway is that they never link to them. That would let readers make up their own minds about why they'd gotten banned, and how accurate their story really is. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&…

Oh for sure. In this case, just looking at their comments it's pretty clear why they've been banned.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#399

Post by angry_octet »

downandout wrote: post #210
burnished wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are some of your views that you think have become unpopular over time?

I don't actually know. I am who I am, and have been responding to things in the same way since I arrived on the site. I took a lot of flack for criticizing GDPR, which I agree with in principle but believe was very poorly implemented. Also people seem to have confused me for a Trump supporter, even though I am middle-of-the-road politically - which is why I suspect that I get many automatic downvotes regardless of th…

If you will forgive the armchair psychoanalysis, perhaps "call things as I see them" is not a good approach? Does that not indicate a lack of engagement with the discourse? You seem to respond negatively, with accusations of bad faith, to a number of respondents who I thought had valid responses; this is builds antagonism.

I have stopped being offended by downvotes -- I am better at accepting them as opposing my viewpoint without having a better counter-argument. If a topic is controversial, I know it will attract downvotes, and I'm fine with insulting people who hold abhorrent views.

If you tone down the hyperbole a little, and write with less of a conspiracy minded tone, I suspect you will have far fewer downvotes; HN is rather libertarian leaning overall.

Re: The value of downvoting, or, how Hacker News gets it wrong (2009)

#400

Post by dgreensp »

Jeff’s 2009 argument against HN is a theoretical one, and IMO wrong. He points at a system that works well (HN), and says it “gets it wrong,” for made-up and unproven reasons.

Paul’s point about not being Reddit, I think, is you need good moderation, and you need to be willing to block and ban. Despite this, Jeff assumes HN limits downvoting in order to not hurt people’s feelings or something, which is a total straw man or non sequitur.

From my armchair, I gather that good communities require good moderation, so if you are trying to scale moderation, that’s your work right there, and a downvoting mechanism doesn’t take the place of that. Ideally mods are people who have organically earned trust and power or are known and trusted by other mods or leaders. Karma scores alone don’t cut it. The mods can use tools to be more efficient and not require an army. If you are running a site that relies on mods, you need a good relationship with your mods and to give them good tools and guidelines.

Post reply on HN