Tell HN: Disagree ≠ Downvote | Hacker News Reader

Tell HN: Disagree ≠ Downvote

50 pointslatch37 comments

There's something I've noticed getting progressively more common in recent months, which i think is a Bad Thing (tm): Downvoting when you disagree with someone's opinion.

Downvoting should be used when someone says something which is unconstructive, offensensive or antagonizing (bait).

Opinions which differ from yours, especially about subjective topics such as politics, should be encouraged. It's true that opinions can be unconstructive, offensive and/or antagonizing, so your you do have to use your judgement.

What to do if you don't agree with a comment? Either skip it and move to the next comment, or reply with your own thoughts on the subject. Even if the person is factually wrong, replying with a correction (or upvoting an existing correction) is far more constructive.

As a general rule, if you aren't sure, simply move on.

View on HN

I disagree. I would downvote any opinion I thought was 'bad for the world' (or whatever), even if it was stated politely, providing it wasn't already in minus karma (that's just mean). If something has 69 upvotes, but just as many people think its wrong, then downvoting lets readers know more accurately how the HN community feels about a certain topic.

Btw I think there is an old pg post sanctioning downvoting for disagreement.

Edit: wouldn't downvote a comment to zero either

The OP should double check the HN guidelines (http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). There is no requirement that downmodding not be for disagreement. HN is not Reddit (which I shouldn't have to tell him because his account is less than a year old ;)) and we do not follow Reddiquette.

FYI, here's PG's comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

I did re-check the guidelines before posting, but wasn't aware of PG's comments. Thanks.

My preference (and that's really all this is, my preference), as has since been suggested, is that unless the comment is clearly unconstructive/offensensive/antagonizing, people leave a reply along with a downvote (or upvote an existing reply they more strongly agree with).

I disagree with you, and therefore upvoting. ;)

The voting mechanism means whatever the end user wants it to mean. I use a simple metric: did the comment improve, or detract from, the conversation?

I think Tycho would agree. If the comment improved the discussion, it couldn't have been "bad for the world."

Sometimes provoking a better comment makes a distressing comment useful; therefore upvoteable. Like I upvoted that distressing comment up there.

The worst case is downvoting a new comment to zero in order to hide it because you disagree. This is a fragile medium for multi-faceted discourse and that kind of thing is just vandalism.

What's so wrong with the idea of upvoting a post that you intend to rebut if it neatly articulates a reasonable position?

Not everything needs or ought to spark a new discussion. But I would up vote things I disagreed with if they were insightful. Retrodden political soundbites though? Nah

I always do; I endorse that. Its hypocritical to reply if you don't think the comment is important.

I don't believe that a downvoted comment more accurately reflects the feelings of HN than an upvoted rebuttal.

You're right that "bad for the world" opinions should likely be downvoted, but I often disagree with comments that are not so without feeling a desire to downvote them.

> I don't believe that a downvoted comment more accurately reflects the feelings of HN than an upvoted rebuttal.

People has many times suggested to force a reply when you down vote to counter the emptiness that a lone down vote leaves.

I agree pretty much. I rarely downvote anything, it's a bit unfriendly. But there are times when I strongly disagree but don't want to start a 'someone on the Internet is wrong ' thread.

I don't think this reflect badly on the users doing the downvoting. This reflects a missing ingredient in the user interface. Up/down votes are too simplistic for the discussion based forums like HN. There ought to be 3 options in reacting to comments:

1) "That was an insightful comment, and I agree with you" 2) "That was a reasonable comment, but I disagree with you" and 3) "You're an idiot"

There are three options - upvote, downvote, or do nothing.

If someone says something interesting/insightful/useful, upvote. If someone says something totally inane, downvote. If someone says something which seems reasonable, but with which you don't agree, either upvote or just don't vote.

I was JUST thinking about this yesterday. I wrote a messy blog post about it, but the gist is that having conversations online isn't messy enough for real humans yet. Upvoting and downvoting being used as a "i agree" and "i disagree" is inevitable.

http://www.davezor.net/2011/02/online-conversations/

Part of HN's success is contributed to the simplicity of the interface. A two-choice voting system doesn't necessarily acurately display the user's intentions, but it promotes the most amount of involvement from them. If you were to go with a more complicated voting system, I would suggest going with what is outlined over in this thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=613071

One problem with the "downvote only offensive/unconstructive/troll-type posts" theory of down-voting becomes apparent when you have a highly upvoted but factually incorrect post, with a factually correct counterpoint that hasn't received any attention in response.

I think it makes sense to both upvote the (correct) response and downvote the overly-upvoted mistaken post; this brings the point-balance of the conversation back in line with reality, rather than letting incorrect posts which might attract a lot of upvotes because they pander to a particular sentiment, or repeat a common myth, dominate the conversation.

Before going into the Downvote thing, why do you upvote? It varies from person to person, but.. lets make some assumptions.

Someone may upvote someone's post because..

1. It adds something to the discussion... or

2. It's funny.. or

3. They agree about it.. or

4. they just want to troll... or

5. they like that person.. or

6. all of above.

And with that I you can pretty much say that you would downvote doing the exact opposite.

Someone may downvote someone's post because..

1. It doesn't add something to the discussion... or

2. It isn't funny.. or

3. they disagree about it.. or

4. they find you're trolling... or

5. they dislike that person.. or

6. all of above.

So yeah, in the mind Disagree = Downvote

upvotes are truthy, downvotes are falsy.

A problem is that many people view comments which they strongly disagree with as unconstructive, offensive and antagonizing.

For example, if I say "crowdsourcing is a superior way for startups to get design work done because it's cheaper and gives you more choices" you can be sure the design community would see this as unconstructive, offensive and antagonizing because there is so much pathos surrounding crowdsourcing.

Shouldn't this be "Ask HN", not "Tell HN"? I was turned off by the blunt statement of "how to behave". I agree that this is worth considering, but I disagree that presenting your opinion as instructions is an effective way to start the conversation.

Disclaimer: I am not using any voting techniques, up or down, on this post or any comments therein.

A few months ago they increased the # of karma required before you could downvote. I've noticed things have been much better since.

I feel that the downvoting privilege should be based off of both total karma and average karma per post. I delete ~40% of what I write after I determine that it's not really adding something, and that's really a habit that most people would benefit from.

I've found that most of the people with high karma and low averages just say snarky one-liners all of the time and some of that happens to land with people (for better or worse) giving them a decent amount of karma despite a lack of contribution.

Yes. It was raised to 500, 3.5 months back. [ http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1853529 ]

Hm, my average is lower than that. But I hope its not because of 'snarky one-liners'. Its often because my comments are on unpopular threads.

Disagreeing with down-voting and not commenting is poisonous, because it doesn't encourage further debate, where positions can be elaborated and facts made clear.

I've only had a few instances of down-vote spirals without refuting arguments, but I tell you, it feels like crap. I'm very likely to even change my mind regarding a subject when somebody is kind enough to present their point of view, even if they down-vote my comment along the way.

I feel HN is a very constructive environment most of the time, but sadly I'm beginning to keep my opinion to myself in threads with high-fanboy presence, where the damnation of subjective anonymous down-votes sometimes makes it feel more like 4chan.

As I remember someone else pointing out, downvoting when disagreeing greatly jeopardizes HN's quality. As you pointed out, people should be encouraged to upvote opinions of high quality and downvote opinions of low quality. If people choose to go against this and up/downvote due to how their views compare with the commenter's views, HN will quickly be filled with posts that go with the majority opinion. Not only will these posts get the most exposure, people will stop posting their views when they are in the minority. Obviously you can see the damage that this would create.

I agree.

Indeed, as some have pointed out, the guidelines say otherwise. However, the guidelines were mostly laid out when pg started this, uh, site. Social sites do not always behave exactly the way their creators intended. If the bulk of people want to do it another way, that's the way it will be done (unless pg decides to force a different way), and I see no problem if it is spelled out.

Why can't you make the entire system easier. There should be only an UPARROW so you click if the information is related and valuable. Then have a separate like and dislike counter, BUT has no other weight except just a visual of how likable it is.

For example: ^30 Like(30) | Dislike (30)

The point is that people react through visual familiarity. We are to condition to see the UP and DOWN arrows as positive and negative.

I think downvoting brings mean-spiritedness to the community, and is one of the main reasons i ran away from digg and reddit and came here.

If I could downvote you I would.

It's my vote. I'll use it to mean what I want.

Perhaps you were being sarcastic and trying to illustrate situations in which someone downvoting is useful. :)

If not: Just because you have the freedom to do as you like, that does not mean that your decision is automatically correct. There are good decisions and bad decisions. If no one was allowed to comment on other people's decisions, sites like HN would have no comments at all. In fact, all discussions would be discouraged.

Just because someone else wants to use their vote to indicate "the comment has merit" doesn't mean I can't use mine to say "I disagree". I wasn't being sarcastic, nor trying to be witty. I'm saying the vote buttons are on my screen, they are mine, I'll cast them how I like.

Use it however you want. However, don't post a comment if you aren't willing to explain why you disagree with a well thought-out post.

It's my vote. I'll use it to mean what I want.

Talking about how people should act is not necessarily a prelude to forcing them to act that way.

stupid question, but how do you even downvote? all i see if a triangle pointing upwards next to the points tally.

i agree, being down voted for an opinion is rather ridiculous. if you don't agree, state it, don't manipulate with a proverbial lever.

Once you reach a certain level of Karma (currently 500), you can downvote.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com