Why are so many HN Members so quick to thumbs down?

All well and good, but have you seen the amount of plain old SPAM that gets here, as well as just weak submissions? Some filtering, even if a little harsh, adds value.

And I speak as someone whose submissions rarely gain traction, especially my own pages!

I see no cabal or conspiracy. I see a somewhat self-selecting and "focussed" group of people with a tight-ish intersection of overlapping interests.

While it’s possible some votes aren’t well justified, keep in mind that the voting buttons themselves are really close together (especially on mobile) and can be hard to hit properly. When I see a “why would this be downvoted?” case, I sort of assume it was meant to be an upvote.

Recently HN implemented an “undown” link so if anyone thinks they made this mistake, look for that link after voting.

Why not give an example?

Example: Why did this deserve 2 downvotes:

"I failed my first 2 tech interviews and Google and Snapchat leaving me feeling cheated by the dumbass whiteboard. Whiteboard tests are tailor-made for the inside the book thinkers. The ones that stop learning when the chapter ends and soon forget when the next subject begins. Computers are the thing that gets you to the thing. You want people who can see that the software they are working has a broader impact beyond 1s and 0s."

Some theories:

negative emotional language ("dumbass") doesn't fare well.

People who have no difficulties with whiteboard tests easily could treat it as an insult.

Your PS on that comment might come across as petty bragging.

Generally I'd say unless you regularly get downvoted or it's a lot of downvotes don't worry too much, while it is a signal it certainly has noise.

Oh so because I hurt the whiteboards feelings that were sufficient to trigger you? I am a CTO so it ain't bragging if you can back it up. It seems like we have either easily offended who believe objects lives matter, or people or people with a deep sense of inadequacy when compared with there peers on this website.

I'm not "triggered", no (not a fan of whiteboard interviews), but that's exactly the kind of language that will catch you downvotes.

And I explicitly said "insulting to people good at whiteboard interviews", not objects (your comment could be read as dismissing them all as book-thinkers without actual skills). Given the amount of people on HN from companies that do this kind of thing, it only takes a tiny percentage to feel that way to downvote you a few times.

So then you admit that downvoting comes from people, who use their personal feelings of resentment to stifle thought. Exactly my point. All I want to do is talk tech without having to tiptoe around invisible peoples feelings. This is a microcosm of why silicon valley sucks.

That you have written rude and, frankly, kinda shitty posts through this thread is why I have downvoted you. I am not "triggered"; I'm a straight white dude who's had an easy life, I don't have any "triggers". I'm not offended; what you're posting is nowhere near novel enough to forge new pathways where I could be offended. My thought process is this: "wow, that dude's being a jerk, I don't want that sort of behavior here--downvote." That's all.

And, worse: when told, by multiple people who are being polite to you, you lose it and start frothing about why they're wrong. The crowd makes that call here, for better or for worse--neither you nor I do.

But I did add my voice to it and downvote you, because I don't think your behavior here is good behavior.

So again, you don't care about substance, only presentation. Got it. I am the opposite, however, I don't get a voice because while I probably have 1000 lifetime upvotes I have about 650 downvotes. But that makes it look like only half the time I'm right when in reality there's a decent number of people like you who discredit my online reputation because of my personal nature. In my work culture, things that upset you wouldn't even have registered so it's frustrating that I have to conform to Joe Smiths idea of proper while he prevents the mob rule from turning on him through downvoting heretical thoughts all-the-while having nothing to do with the core principles of what this website is for.

I care quite a lot about substance. I care also about politeness. I care about treating people with compassion and decency. It is very possible to care both about an argument and the people both making and receiving that argument. And, frankly? It is telling that you would refer to politeness derogatorily as presentation. But I understand that--and because I have been in your shoes before I grew up a tiny bit, I will call you on this--you think it lets you minimize your bad behavior. So I will decline to let you off the hook without emphasizing: your behavior is pretty bad right now.

It's not about "heretical thoughts." This is just and solely about you being a jerk. You're whining about people trying to shut down your Grand Ideas or whatever...when it's really just that nobody wants to listen to a jerk. So I downvoted you in this thread (though obviously I can't downvote the post to which I am replying), and will continue to do so if I happen to read your post and go "man, what a jerk he's being!". But to put a preemptive pin in the balloon, it's not because of you, I will probably forget your handle after this conversation--it's because I try to always downvote people who are being jerks!

It's too bad, because you don't sound stupid and (having taken a look) some of your post history seems interesting; I'm sure that you have some generally cool things you could be saying. But you also sound like a lot of your identity is tied up in being a jerk. That's your choice, but it doesn't tend to play well around here. The good news? There's a reason that I said "being a jerk", not "are a jerk"; being a jerk is a choice and you can stop being a jerk at any time. I recommend it.

Here is what I don't understand. I can write the same comment to two people and one will call me a jerk and the other praise me. So what am I? A Jerk or Righteous? From the words I wrote, barring vocal tones for context, you determined I was a jerk. You never considered things might have been lost in translation and jumped straight to judgment.

But the worst part is that because I didn't live up to your standard, a standard you judged from a few words, you claim the moral high ground and lecture me. Just because you value something doesn't mean others do as well, nor does it mean its wrong to disagree because there is no shortage of diversity of thoughts on this planet, and morality is relative.

However, even after all this you still haven't got to my main point. That the 500 point barrier creates an unfair advantage for you over me. That's good for you but is that good for the promotion of the best ideas, even ones you might not agree with that turn out to be right? I mean we are all wrong sometimes. But I think it's the fact that you have that power and I don't that gives you the arrogance to son me.

> You never considered things might have been lost in translation

I did. Lots of people here are ESL, and there is that persistent strain of tone-deafness you can see from ESL folks. (Many learn better; some hide behind it.) Then I went and looked at your posting history, because I am invested in this place and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I determined, for myself, that your behavior did not merit it. But that you also weren't dumb. Which is why I responded to your post in the first place--like I said, I've been that righteous, raging internet prick, too, and it basically only hurt myself. So you could call it my good deed for the day.

Right now you are, however, making me play "dumb or dishonest?"; you keep (and my inclination is to "dishonestly", if I'm being frank) conflating your opinions with your behavior, as if that I am saying you are being a jerk because I disagree with you, rather than because I think you are being a jerk. The deeper you huddle in your excuses, the harder it is to find the fortitude to own your behavior, to walk it back, and to stop.

---

I didn't realize that the Unfairness of the Situation was your "main point"; it mostly seemed that I Am A Misunderstood Genius Who Everyone Is Keeping Down was your main point. But sure, I guess it's unfair that I've invested more time in the community and surpassed a (fairly low; I've had a few comments reach the 80-100 point range and you often see 500+-point submissions!) barrier that mostly serves to keep voting rings from downvote-bombing stuff. Maybe if you didn't needlessly antagonize people in so many comments, you would too surmount it?

I also didn't realize "you're being a jerk and should stop" was so arrogant, but...well. I was honest with you, and I gave you some pretty constructive criticism about how to not be so upset by being downvoted (namely, just...don't be a jerk!). You've chosen not to listen to that criticism and instead try to legislate about how wrong it is. I think you're probably messing up by doing so; frankly, the lessons I learned from reforming my own online behavior made me a much better person to be around offline, too, which is a nontrivial part of why I said anything in the first place because seeing people piss down their own legs makes me a little uncomfortable. I don't intend to respond to you further now, though, as you have proven that assuming good faith of you is a waste of time.

I’m guessing that you have problems with people offline as much as online, assuming that this is your standard of behavior. Maybe you should consider that your overly brash and confrontational tone simply isn’t working for you.

Or maybe, everyone on this article has proven exactly the main point of the article. Because no one has discussed the technical merits of the advice I offered, only how they interpreted my tone via text to be too harsh for their sensitive standards. It proves my point that this site downvotes not based on wrong ideas, but rather disliked ideas. And that is something I wont be a part of any longer.

You didn’t ask for technical interpretation, you asked why you keep getting negative feedback. A number of people have pointed you in the direction of “why” and your response is to blame everyone except yourself.

That’s... pathological.

Right and so now I know that calling inanimate objects such as a whiteboard will invalidate any further knowledge I have to share. I could cure cancer but if I said, it was a bitch of a problem people on this site would go whoaaaaa dude negative 10 karmas for you. Isn't that sad? That's why I think the thumbs down button is a bad idea, just let the best ideas get the most rankings. Get rid of the 5+ year council of poeple that make it insane for others to get anything. I'll posts some good articles, make some insightful comments, and then someone will have a bad day and decide to erase all my good deeds. Thats super fun

Another theory:

Your comments are filled with opinionated arrogance.

That aren't backed up with any facts. Basically, the unwritten rules is the more opinionated your comment(especially if it isn't in the norm) the more you need to back it up with facts or even links to sources.

Also, I've gotten my share of down votes. But, usually it gets re-upvoted once enough people see it down voted. if it's not a "worthless comment" or extreme opinion without some kind of argument to back it up.

Ask yourself this->Is my comment actually useful to other people? or just me spouting off my greatness...

Most of my down-votes are from the later. or my dark sense of sarcasm, but that's a personal issue of mine.

For people who failed their first interviews, it gives them hope they can be a CTO in 5 years. Hows that for being helpful? Again, it seems like you are just projecting insecurities at me and what I have accomplished by calling me arrogant instead of successful.

And you could have transported that message without all the negative fluff and (probably, as I said, there is noise) without downvotes.

My god how do you go outside with a sensitivity level that high?

Is there any need to go on being this rude? It simply does not help.

I spent a LONG time working with "Big Swinging Dicks" (the wrong sort of BSD for HN maybe?) in finance in London (and New York and Tokyo), and the loudest rudest ones were not the ones best at their jobs. When even the IT guy can tell that you are about to do several megabucks of screwup, bad-mouthing other people is just digging the hole deeper, for example.

There are not many facts that can be used to back up an anecdotal story other than, you know, the facts of the anecdote. Furthermore, how arrogant can I be when I come out and admit right off the bat i failed two interviews?

If you've only failed two interviews then you really are not trying hard enough.

You are being thoroughly rude and arrogant and oblivious I suggest, and I'm going to stop responding to your posts because I am just getting angry. I suspect that I am not the only one here to feel that way.

Stop waving your willy at me and others, and go back and read what you have written, carefully, as if it had been written TO you not BY you. If you did not intend to be a troll then I suggest you should revisit how you communicate.