Comment by jmonegro | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jmonegro | Hacker News Reader

Replacing downvotes with a flagging system or similar might be a good idea: I've been noticing that people tend to downvote other users not because their comments are "uncivil" or "frivolous", but because they express an opinion different from theirs.

I've seen many perfectly-civilized comments being downvoted, presumably, because they are controversial, though I have seen others that deserve downvotes because of their nature.

The way I see it, replacing downvotes with a comment flagging system would probably reduce the amount rude comments because they'd probably be killed soon enough. However, it eliminates the penalty of being rude (a drop in karma), and some visible way of penalization must be put in place for it to be effective in deterring users from being rude. A work around might be that for every killed comment (due to numerous flags) a user gets -5 or -10 karma.

Things would behave differently with posts, but these are just my first thoughts (when it comes to commenting).

I've been noticing that people tend to downvote other users not because their comments are "uncivil" or "frivolous", but because they express an opinion different from theirs.

I bookmarked this HN comment

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

a while ago, because it expressed the view of pg in an earlier era of HN that "it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness."

But it's interesting to see pg opening up today's discussion of new, more nuanced, flags, and that would change the core meaning of a downvote. I'm all for learning a new system of flagging and voting if that helps encourage a thoughtful community.

I sometimes downvote things that seem mistaken. I think most users do. This didn't use to be a problem when there were only a couple thousand users who often knew one another personally. The problem is voting to agree/disagree combined with a larger and probably less thoughtful audience. That's when it starts to feel like a mob.

My voting behavior is pretty closely related to the comment score: if I think the score is "right", I usually leave it alone, but if it's too high I'll downvote for disagreement. I think there's a big difference downvoting a comment at >2 and downvoting a comment at 1 or below.

I also routinely upvote comments I disagree with but find well-reasoned nonetheless. Especially if they are unusually difficult for me to refute.

There is clear statistical evidence that many (perhaps most) users view scores this way. On the whole that is probably good, because it tends to prevent scores from going to extremes in either direction.

Using downvotes as a way of expressing disagreement is, I believe, unfair to a commenter if he/she is courteously stating his/her point of view or idea, mainly because downvoting inflicts a penalty on the user's karma - which many users, I surmise, care about.

I don't think users should be penalized for siding with one aspect of an discussion just because other users disagree and proceed to downvote based on their own personal opinion. It's not even the best way of determining majority (which I believe is, partly, the purpose of the system), since not every user makes use of the feature.

Some sort of hybrid might be the most comprehensive solution. Probably something along the lines of upvotes raise karma (compensating good input), downvotes don't affect karma (their purpose becomes, then, to provide insight on the general opinion of a subject), and flags affect karma negatively for rude or uncivilized comments.

Strictly speaking a vote does affect someone's karma. But it doesn't cause their karma to be net decreased as a result of posting a comment unless you downvote the comment below 1, which most people don't do lightly. I think of the up and downvoting as a collaboration to determine how much additional karma someone should get for posting a new comment.

So the original purpose of binding comment scores to karma was to _supplement_ the overall karma of a user? Not to be confounded as one of the core ideas behind the whole system?

Regardless of the original purpose, I think that fomenting conversation should be one of the most prominent ideas behind the whole karma deal. The comments and the conversations are what make HN different (and, of course, demographics, which consequently means that the comments of this given demographic, self-targeted, is what makes HN great), and I know many concur with that statement.

Yes to the first question: the better comments you make, the more points you get. I'm not sure what you mean by the second.

What I mean by the second part is that comment shouldn't be a supplement of score, but one of the most prominent factors affecting it.

which most people don't do lightly

Perhaps this is no longer true?

Regardless, the fact the downvoting is just as easy as upvoting (and has no undo) strikes me as odd.

I suggest downvoting cost the voter something, not just the votee. 1:1 seems simple enough. It would also give greater pause to newer users than veterans. However, an undo (perhaps timed like comment editing) would be more desirable in this case.

I agree, it should cost the voter 1:1 to downvote a comment, but only one that's already below 0.

I wonder if there's a statistical test for mob voting... a mob vote is a vote reinforcing an already extreme score, a mob voter is someone whose votes are usually mob votes?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com