HN should increase the downvote-ability threshold as a function of time | Hacker News Reader

HN should increase the downvote-ability threshold as a function of time

1 pointTimothyBurgess5 comments

The title is fairly self-explanatory but here's my reasoning:

Given the current system (a static threshold of 500), as the community grows and time progresses, an ever-increasing number of users will no doubt be able to downvote. And from my own experience in gaming the HN system, it took me relatively very little time to reach the 500 mark.

Of course I feel like I personally should have the right to downvote (as I don't abuse it and am adamant about only downvoting comments of which provide no substance)... and I'm sure 99.999999% of everyone else does too. But the sad reality of the matter is that no... not everyone should have the ability to downvote because it's clear that a number of those who do so are motivated by differences in opinions rather than lack of intellectual stimulation.

I do realize that the administrators of HN most will likely adjust the threshold over time as they see fit (as they've done previously) but the threshold would be much better suited as a function of time... possibly relative to join date and/or combined with average karma per post (a pretty good indicator of individual worthy contribution)... and maybe even take into (small) account how many upvotes users gives.

To prevent decline of these boards - i.e., a "hivemind" formed by general disagreements regardless of intellectual substance - I think a dynamic function for the downvoting ability should be in place. Each user's karma threshold should vary and should be a semi-logarithmic (not quite as steep - maybe cut it in half) function, roughly based on a combination of the following:

- (45%) those with the most karma

- (20%) those with the highest average

- (10%) time since his/her account creation

- (10%) number of active users

- (5%) upvotes given

- (5%) number of submissions

AFAIK this is already the case.

EDIT: Quoting the unofficial Hacker News FAQ:

"You can only downvote comments once you have sufficient karma. The required level rises over time to account for the karma inflation caused by an increasing userbase.

If you do have enough karma to downvote then the reason might be that you are looking at a response to a comment of your own, or the comment may be older than 24 hours."

The required level is static but increases manually via moderator/administrator intervention. It is currently set at 500. I can downvote pretty much anything.

The quote you've provided is somewhat misleading, as the required level is not truly dynamic/automatic. It may "rise over time" but it is solely dependent on administrators/moderators manually raising the threshold.

As I said in the original post, the threshold should vary from user to user... not be a static, arbitrary number (currently 500) adjusted over time by administrators/moderators. Admins/mods should however tweak the algorithm that determines the threshold. And this threshold should change by the day, maybe even hour... even if only by a fraction of 1 karma point.

I'm going to guess that you won't see this implemented anytime soon. My reasoning is that pg is very busy, and that there isn't enough evidence of this being an actual problem to justify his taking the time to do this. Maybe if somebody coded it up and sent him a patch he'd consider it? Or not? Who knows?

Are excessive downvotes really a problem here? Maybe it's just the stories I pick to read, but I haven't really seen it, or even seen people complaining about it on any mass level.

For vote-centric message board systems, intuition tells me it's best to nip something like this in the bud before it all goes downhill, regardless of current status.

It's hard to deny that we've all (those who've been reading for a while) noticed even the slightest decline in quality and an increase in unbiased contributions.

Decline is inevitable but minimizing the rate thereof is not.

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, I'm just saying that I don't expect a complicated solution to be implemented anytime soon. I'm basing this on what I've noticed of pg's posts on the topic, and what the man himself has said about his perception of the quality of HN.

Of course I can't read minds, and for all I know pg is already halfway through coding something exactly like what you described. :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com