Ask HN: Why does the HN point system penalize comments that elicit good debate?
I just made a comment which got down-voted twice, but then elicited a strong debate beneath it. Doesn't allowing down-voting without allowing up-voting (or equivalent) lead to a more oppressive form of debate? I am okay with moderators making choices, but allowing only a mode of castigation without the complement seems incomplete.
16 comments
I assume you mean https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35902656? The top reply begins "I find this to be a lazy argument". Probably other users downvoted it for similar reasons.
I wouldn't call that subthread "strong debate". It's pretty generic - not as bad as a flamewar, but not the curious conversation that we're seeking on HN. It generated some pretty lame replies like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35902713, and seems to have gotten worse as it went along.
Btw I think there's another reason why your comment got downvoted - beginning with a pre-emptive swipe against people who might disagree with you ("There’ll be a bunch of people here saying that capitalism is vicious") is pretty reliably a marker of a low-quality comment. We see it a lot in the form of "I'm sure I'll get downvoted to hell for this, but..." - which is pretty much an automatic reason to downvote.
I completely understand the desire to protect oneself, but trying to reduce criticism in advance to something simplistic is not how good conversation works. Rather, you should make your best argument in the most substantive way you can, and then let other people speak for themselves.
So I wouldn't say this was a strong example to make a case against HN's voting system. This in fact is usually the case with such complaints, because they're mostly just reactions to the fact that it sucks to get downvoted. It does suck! but the fact that it sucks is not interesting enough to make a whole thread out of. There's a reason why the HN guidelines have long said "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The thing to do when getting downvoted is to reflect honestly on what in your comment might have attracted downvotes. If you find something, consider what a stronger version of your comment might have been, and try to post more like that in the future. If you really can't find anything, look again - because there's nearly always something there. But if not, then chalk it up to the internet being weird, remember that misclicks are a thing, and move on. It's not worth making more of a deal out of.
I wouldn't call that subthread "strong debate". It's pretty generic - not as bad as a flamewar, but not the curious conversation that we're seeking on HN. It generated some pretty lame replies like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35902713, and seems to have gotten worse as it went along.
Btw I think there's another reason why your comment got downvoted - beginning with a pre-emptive swipe against people who might disagree with you ("There’ll be a bunch of people here saying that capitalism is vicious") is pretty reliably a marker of a low-quality comment. We see it a lot in the form of "I'm sure I'll get downvoted to hell for this, but..." - which is pretty much an automatic reason to downvote.
I completely understand the desire to protect oneself, but trying to reduce criticism in advance to something simplistic is not how good conversation works. Rather, you should make your best argument in the most substantive way you can, and then let other people speak for themselves.
So I wouldn't say this was a strong example to make a case against HN's voting system. This in fact is usually the case with such complaints, because they're mostly just reactions to the fact that it sucks to get downvoted. It does suck! but the fact that it sucks is not interesting enough to make a whole thread out of. There's a reason why the HN guidelines have long said "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The thing to do when getting downvoted is to reflect honestly on what in your comment might have attracted downvotes. If you find something, consider what a stronger version of your comment might have been, and try to post more like that in the future. If you really can't find anything, look again - because there's nearly always something there. But if not, then chalk it up to the internet being weird, remember that misclicks are a thing, and move on. It's not worth making more of a deal out of.
Some points to be made:
- there is both up and down voting
- you cannot down vote a direct reply
- there are not moderators, just one (dang), who is very hands off.
- most moderation is done by the community
- certain topics and opinions are regularly up or down voted
- your comments can swing from down to up over time
The system is working as intended, HN still maintains itself quite well using it
If you want a more specific answer to your comment, link it here
Another way to think about this is that the HN community does not reward bad or low quality comments, even if they spur a good debate. There is almost always a better way to say the same thing and create a good debate.
- there is both up and down voting
- you cannot down vote a direct reply
- there are not moderators, just one (dang), who is very hands off.
- most moderation is done by the community
- certain topics and opinions are regularly up or down voted
- your comments can swing from down to up over time
The system is working as intended, HN still maintains itself quite well using it
If you want a more specific answer to your comment, link it here
Another way to think about this is that the HN community does not reward bad or low quality comments, even if they spur a good debate. There is almost always a better way to say the same thing and create a good debate.
> both up and down voting
Yes, I have had comments which over time have swung between positive and negative and back again.
It would be helpful to see up and down as separate figures as it is possible to imagine no one has voted, but in fact they have just balanced out.
Yes, I have had comments which over time have swung between positive and negative and back again.
It would be helpful to see up and down as separate figures as it is possible to imagine no one has voted, but in fact they have just balanced out.
I think at some point you have to accept that life is not 100% fair and no system of scoring is going to do the right thing all the time.
Downvoting doesn’t have a dominant effect on HN dynamics the way it does on Reddit, I think many people take a small insult way too seriously.
Downvoting doesn’t have a dominant effect on HN dynamics the way it does on Reddit, I think many people take a small insult way too seriously.
It's a personality thing, that some people are more liable to downvote.
The definition of an illiberal society is one that will not consider other views. There are factions & forces, which tend towards certain views, which areess tolerant, which are less interested in picking out embracing & supporting a couple out there ideas, especially if there's some rougher spots that aren't super easy to make it through.
Personslly I'd really love to see a future online system where we really have to stake ourselves in more to vote, and where we can assess & weight people as we desire. I hope this can be useful for identifying & countering more of the negative pervasive forces, but it has plenty of other risks & possible downsides, for sure.
The definition of an illiberal society is one that will not consider other views. There are factions & forces, which tend towards certain views, which areess tolerant, which are less interested in picking out embracing & supporting a couple out there ideas, especially if there's some rougher spots that aren't super easy to make it through.
Personslly I'd really love to see a future online system where we really have to stake ourselves in more to vote, and where we can assess & weight people as we desire. I hope this can be useful for identifying & countering more of the negative pervasive forces, but it has plenty of other risks & possible downsides, for sure.
Because it discourage discussion against the "crowd wisdom" of HN.
Had a lot of karma collected, then a comment with different opinion against point of view of HN wasted it.
It may be a feature, not a bug because it reinforcing the network of same minded people here, and dicourages different opinions.
As Peter Thiel tells: "Tell me something that's true, that almost nobody agrees with you on."
You won't find this on HN because signal to noise ratio is low in such discussions and you will get downvoted.
Maybe there should be option to sort from most downvoted on the top to fix in some part this issue?
Had a lot of karma collected, then a comment with different opinion against point of view of HN wasted it.
It may be a feature, not a bug because it reinforcing the network of same minded people here, and dicourages different opinions.
As Peter Thiel tells: "Tell me something that's true, that almost nobody agrees with you on."
You won't find this on HN because signal to noise ratio is low in such discussions and you will get downvoted.
Maybe there should be option to sort from most downvoted on the top to fix in some part this issue?
> "Tell me something that's true, that almost nobody agrees with you on."
> You won't find this on HN because signal to noise ratio is low in such discussions and you will get downvoted.
Over the years I've had several comments that I consider "something that's true, that almost nobody agrees with [me] on" that attracted many upvotes, good replies, and emails from people interested to know more.
It took quite a bit of practice to learn how to phrase things in a way that could meet people where they're at and take them on the same kind of journey of realisation that I'd been through. The requirement to do that applies to any topic that almost nobody agrees with you on; that is not a particular aspect of HN's culture, it is inherent to the way broader society functions.
If you want to change people's minds about something on a topic where almost everyone holds a particular belief or assumption, it's going to take some effort and care.
The OP's comment that they’re complaining about isn't about something that "almost nobody agrees with [them] on", it's a pretty standard talking point right now and throughout the history of technologies that displace human labor.
It's fine to post comments like that, and I agree with them that the discussion it initiated is worthwhile, but if people downvote that kind of comment, it's probably because they find the point repetitive and would prefer to see comments that introduce new ideas.
That said, if anyone ever sees a comment that's really solid but that they think has been unfairly downvoted, they can always email [email protected] and ask for it to be reviewed.
> You won't find this on HN because signal to noise ratio is low in such discussions and you will get downvoted.
Over the years I've had several comments that I consider "something that's true, that almost nobody agrees with [me] on" that attracted many upvotes, good replies, and emails from people interested to know more.
It took quite a bit of practice to learn how to phrase things in a way that could meet people where they're at and take them on the same kind of journey of realisation that I'd been through. The requirement to do that applies to any topic that almost nobody agrees with you on; that is not a particular aspect of HN's culture, it is inherent to the way broader society functions.
If you want to change people's minds about something on a topic where almost everyone holds a particular belief or assumption, it's going to take some effort and care.
The OP's comment that they’re complaining about isn't about something that "almost nobody agrees with [them] on", it's a pretty standard talking point right now and throughout the history of technologies that displace human labor.
It's fine to post comments like that, and I agree with them that the discussion it initiated is worthwhile, but if people downvote that kind of comment, it's probably because they find the point repetitive and would prefer to see comments that introduce new ideas.
That said, if anyone ever sees a comment that's really solid but that they think has been unfairly downvoted, they can always email [email protected] and ask for it to be reviewed.
> Had a lot of karma collected, then a comment with different opinion against point of view of HN wasted it.
I was under the impression a comment couldn’t get you more than four negative points. Apparently that’s true for the comment itself but further downvotes keep subtracting from the user’s karma¹. I’m curious for the rationale.
If you’re willing to share I’d be interested on a ballpark figure of how much karma you had and what the comment was². Your case is the first I’ve heard of such a situation and seems quite extreme. I’m wondering why the comment wasn’t flagged, for example, which would have stopped downvotes.
I frequently see differing opinions on HN (one need only look at the AI discussions, with top comments both pro and against) so I’ve never been convinced by this idea of the HN hive mind / groupthink.
¹ https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#downvo...
² Presumably we’re well past the point where it could get further downvotes.
I was under the impression a comment couldn’t get you more than four negative points. Apparently that’s true for the comment itself but further downvotes keep subtracting from the user’s karma¹. I’m curious for the rationale.
If you’re willing to share I’d be interested on a ballpark figure of how much karma you had and what the comment was². Your case is the first I’ve heard of such a situation and seems quite extreme. I’m wondering why the comment wasn’t flagged, for example, which would have stopped downvotes.
I frequently see differing opinions on HN (one need only look at the AI discussions, with top comments both pro and against) so I’ve never been convinced by this idea of the HN hive mind / groupthink.
¹ https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#downvo...
² Presumably we’re well past the point where it could get further downvotes.
I'd generalise this to other forums, or even society in general, to a large extent. Ultimately, we must accept that these systems are made up of people, and no matter how enlightened, humans will be humans :)
In particular, I do agree with your larger sentiment here, I myself have felt like the spectrum of views tolerated here is quite limited.
In particular, I do agree with your larger sentiment here, I myself have felt like the spectrum of views tolerated here is quite limited.
re P.Thiel: I experienced the same thing on HN.
I would welcome HN providing visibility into the nature of the downvotes (how many up total, how many down total, when).
I also want to know why something dissenting/controversial/unpopular is downvoted.
I would welcome HN providing visibility into the nature of the downvotes (how many up total, how many down total, when).
I also want to know why something dissenting/controversial/unpopular is downvoted.
It's better than Reddit, because downvotes can't go below -4, which means you always have a chance for revival, and people can still respond to you anyway.
This is cool. Has it been documented somewhere?
Not sure. But I've been downvoted plenty of times and it's never gone lower than -4.