For disagreement, write a comment explaining /why/ you disagree.
(It's similar to HN's policy* of "prefer discussion to downvotes")
* EDIT: I mean culture; as in I've seen it mentioned a lot by users of the site, though it's not in the rules
(It's similar to HN's policy* of "prefer discussion to downvotes")
* EDIT: I mean culture; as in I've seen it mentioned a lot by users of the site, though it's not in the rules
HN has never had any such policy.
Edit: We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10356268 and marked it off-topic.
To the extent that HN itself has a policy it was set years ago by pg saying that downvoting for disagreement is ok.
I'm surprised I've not heard that before; but either way, I guess I stand thoroughly corrected, and will know better in future. Thank you for replying to explain my error and not just downvoting :)
Why don't I see down arrows?
There are no down arrows on stories. They appear on comments
after users reach a certain karma threshold, but never on
direct replies.
Instead, both the criticism-giver and the receiver are better off if you went "This code is shit, /because/ so-and so, and you can improve it in this-and-that way".
Of course, a "I like this /because/" is also more constructive than a "I like this". But I'm sure there's been plenty of examples that no matter how many "I like this"-es you get, it only takes one "this sucks, you suck" to demotivate someone.
Positive sentiment needs no explanation because it inherits the context of the thing it is agreeing with; negative sentiment needs explanation else it is somewhere between useless and nonsense.
Of course negative sentiment also "inherits the context of the thing it is (dis)agreeing with."
You glean just as much information from someone clicking Like and leaving no context as you do someone clicking Dislike and leaving no context.
I disagree; Perhaps a programming analogy instead?
if(x == 0) # when this is true, you know what x is, and what it isn't
if(x != 0) # when this is true, you only know what x isn't
Like with no context tells the receiver what the audience wants (more of the same); dislike doesn't (okay, so don't do this thing, but do what instead?).
That's what I mean by the analogy - "do this" is a much more useful statement than "don't do that".