Hacker News Reader

Comment by Tycho | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com