Ask YC: How do you defend the downmodded? | Hacker News Reader

Ask YC: How do you defend the downmodded?

14 pointsbouncingsoul23 comments

I'm confused about how to defend unfairly or inexplicably downmodded comments (which I feel like I'm seeing more of lately).

My instinct is to vote them up, but I'm not sure the system properly calculates what I'm trying to say.

Because votes are permanent they seem equivalent to absolute statements. What I'm trying to do is make a relative statement (i.e, "This comment is better than its current score indicates.").

I would just vote up, but often I don't even agree with the comment. But it's polite and reasonable, so I don't see why it should be punished.

Also, I remember PG talking about weighting accounts based on whether they vote up good or bad material. And if I vote up mediocre comments all the time I wonder if I'll be punished in that system.

What does everyone else do?

View on HN

To shamelessly copy from a comment I left elsewhere:

I'll mod something up if it's on-topic, well thought-out, and I agree with it. I'll only mod something down if it's blatantly off topic and rude/trollish. If I simply don't agree with what they said, but they said it in useful way, I'll just leave it be.

I'm all about modding the people who post goatse links down into negative oblivion, but I think it kind of stifles discussion if you downmod simply because you don't happen to agree. Instead of dog-piling someone for a dissenting opinion, take the extra 30 seconds to write a response. It'll enrich the discussion.

And I'll add that I upmod comments that are below -1 if they aren't trollish. If that marginalizes me somehow, who cares. I'd rather people not get their karma destroyed just because they have a minority opinion. Go destroy trolls instead.

I follow exactly your model.

Downmodding to express disagreement will result in unhealthy group-think.

Yes. The most frustrating thing about this site is getting downmodded (repeatedly) without any replies. If you don't agree, say so! Then maybe we can have an intelligent discourse. I have often made comments that are counter to the "groupthink" of the thread. Sometimes because I disagree, sometimes just to play devil's advocate to see where it leads. But always to learn and share.

If clicking the down arrow without replying becomes a trend, then no one will want to disagree. Then where will we be?

I think this is what has been the most damaging aspect of Reddit's growth. People don't see the up and down arrows as a measure of quality, they see them as a source of agreement.

I agree 100%.

I dont even know how to downmode someone. How do I?

you don't, because you don't have enough karma yet. you have to get to 20 or so before downmodding is possible.

I go one step further - if someone writes an insightful, contrarian comment that I don't agree with, I'll upmod it for quality. For instance if someone brings up a real downside of startup life it usually gets attacked, but I'll vote it up if it is good.

I mostly agree, except that I'll also downmod someone if they assert something that is false, heavily disputed, or sweepingly general. There is no use proliferating incorrect information, urban myths, faulty reports, or common stereotypes. Such a downmod, of course, would be accompanied by a correction, unless there already is one, in which case I'll upmod the correction.

Oh I agree with that. I just group 'stating blatantly false things' and 'proliferating stereotypes' into the troll category.

Well, that's why I didn't say "blatantly false". There are often cases where someone has heard something so many times that they believe it's true (such as "Killing praying mantises is a crime in the US," or "Rice is no longer thrown at weddings because birds will explode," neither of which is true, or "Drinking bottled water is changing the Earth's climate," which is heavily disputed), and I would hesitate to call those people trolls. In such a case, a low karma on that comment and a quick rebuttal is certainly a fair response.

Votes aren't meant to signal that a comment is polite or reasonable, ask yourself was the comment worth the time it took you to read it. Upmod if it was, Downmod if it wasn't.

The idea is for the community to collaboratively filter the submissions and comments so the content that is worth reading bubbles to the top, and the trash goes down to the bottom. That's it.

I think this much of your post: ask yourself was the comment worth the time it took you to read it. Upmod if it was, Downmod if it wasn't could/should be part of a HN Instruction Manual.

The only problem with that is that it means you will be voting on every single comment. Personally, I also take into account the comment's current score, and if I agree that its value is equal to its current score, I leave it as it is.

I do a little of both; I'll spend a little if I think someone is taking an unreasonable hit (I didn't think much about it, honestly, until it happened to me).

But these days I'm trying to spend more upmodding really good, pertinent submissions rather than comments. I want to see HN quickly return to being the resource I came to use so much for hacking, well, news. I'm finding the return on (time) invested here has fallen recently, and I want it back!

I'll vote up anything that I either agree with, or that I think conveys a defensible non-trolling statement, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

Also, FWIW, I don't generally bother to down-mod anything that is already negative. There isn't much point to it, unless you feel the poster is clearly trolling (IMO).

Go with your gut and do what you think is the right thing. Let the chips fall where they may. If everyone did this, we would never have any more of these "how to make HN better" threads.

There's actually a neat little psychology hack that you can use. If you comment with "why did this get voted down" it will inevitably be voted up.

I tried it a few times and it seems to work. Just don't do it unless you really think it is an unfair downmodding, since it doesn't add much to the conversation.

This works in reverse, as well. I used it just recently at reddit...the post was at 40 points at the time, and by the next day was at 17. That's actually a more dramatic impact than I expected (though the comment was particularly obnoxious and sexist, and I was genuinely shocked that it had so many upvotes).

Don't fucking circlejerk so much here on news yc. The meta-meta talk is all crap. Get back to posting links to inspirational stories and insightful tech articles. All this meta talk is increasing the noise ratio.

Don't forget, sometimes hackers can be users, too. This site is the one thing that we users have in common. So indulge us if you can as we discuss our common user experience. What you call noise we call QA.

so my equation is (all variables range from 1 to 10, except for number of replied)

agreement/quality*insight-number of replies

if its above 2 then i upmod.... lol

checkt out voteforme.com, the new web service that relieves users of their voting hassles. With it's sophisticated, patentet formula, voteforme figures out how you would have voted and does it for you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com