Comment by dang | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dang | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Obviously you can't post like this here. Note that your original comment has since been upvoted.

I'm going to put this down to your going on tilt (it happens to almost everyone), but please don't do it again. We all get downvoted. It stings, and it sucks not to necessarily know why, but it happens to everyone and it's the way HN works.

Over time, if your comments are consistently getting downvoted, you should reflect on what might be wrong with them. I looked through your recent account history and it doesn't seem so hard to figure out. In one case, you posted a comment which got a lot of upvotes, but then you pasted it in two other places in the thread and got downvoted for that. Another case was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21983017 which is obviously a bad comment for HN. If one is to judge by these examples, it looks like downvoting is functioning ok.

Incidentally, the user who downvoted your comment upthread is a working doctor. (I hope it's ok for me to say that as long as I don't leak the name.) They are also a fine, scrupulous HN user, so they probably did that for a good reason. You may be disappointed that they didn't give you a substantive reply, but there's no obligation to do that on HN. Sometimes people don't want to get into an argument; sometimes they have their hands full with other things; sometimes they just don't have the energy. It takes a lot of time and energy to think through and type out a substantive comment, especially on a divisive topic where the chance of being misunderstood or attacked is quite high.

Ask him why he downvoted me. I'm really curious what guideline he thinks I violated.

Downvotes don't have to be because of guideline violations.

Well... that is my complaint about hacker news is that people frequently downvoted stories and comments that "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" and don't violate any other guidelines. And they are never held accountable.

I am not referring to my own history. I often read downvoted comments and sometimes upvote them.

If people could indicate a reason for the downvote, it would probably help the whole situation.

The fact that this guy is a doctor... does not help your case. It makes it worse... if this were another lay person that downvoted cuz they thought it was off-topic, I would be ok with that.... But it sounds like this is another doctor, that disagrees with the doctor I linked to.

You might have a mistaken idea of how HN works, which is maybe why you've been finding it frustrating. On HN, it has always been ok to downvote a comment because one disagrees with it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314

Sure that's controversial, but the controversy is perennial. People have been making exactly the same arguments about it for a dozen years now, and that's just on HN—the debate goes back well before that. Different takes are possible. HN has its take. It's stable, we're not going to change it, and in my opinion it works relatively well. Moreover, the problems with it are not the problems that the users who post complaints about it are complaining about.

Are these comments from pg in 2008 the main source that downvoting signals disagreement? If so, I would suggest you document it somewhere more prominent. Perhaps you could add guidelines on downvoting.

When more is known about covid-19 I plan to come back to this thread and see who was right. If Dr Cameron Kyle-Sidell was wrong, totally off-base, on the wrong track... then maybe you're right... maybe this system does work "relatively well"

Even if there was a more prominently stated, formal policy about when downvotes are appropriate, it would make no material difference; the overwhelming majority of downvote-inclined people will downvote any comment that gives them a negative feeling.

That said, some of the best comments are ones that carry an argument that most people would disagree with, but are worded persuasively and/or informatively enough that they attract upvotes. It's difficult to achieve but well worth aiming for.

Outside of encouraging that, I'm not sure what else dang is meant to do. Discussion platforms that try to enforce policies like requiring explanations for any downvotes don't seem to have substantially better quality discussions.

Hi, I downvoted your post. I think `dang hit the nail on the head in re: why I didn't reply (don't really want to argue since arguing on this topic has occupied more of my recent HN activity than I really like; and I'm busy doing other things).

I certainly don't think your original post violated HN policy by any means, but that isn't the threshold for downvoting on HN as far as I understand.

I downvoted because the material in question isn't inline with how the majority of us are thinking about this disease. It creates a false controversy. To be fair, much of what he's describing is the pathophysiology of diffuse alveolar damage (the correlate of ARDS), but simultaneously he's saying it's not ARDS. Even in this video he seemingly felt compelled to walk back his high altitude pulmonary edema comments from a prior video.

I am not going to be replying further in this thread, but since things got off the rails a bit and my downvote was a part of that, I did want to try to explain my views of the content.

> the material in question isn't inline with how the majority of us are thinking about this disease.

That may be true. But that is what makes this important. The current protocols aren't working. This guy is a doctor on the front lines. Gattinoni, whom he references, is an expert in ventilation. This is not a crackpot conspiracy like 5G towers and I'm sick of seeing it dismissed like it is.

I have watched all his videos and I have never seem him say it is HAPE. My recollection is he said it was similar to HAPE.

He... nor Dr. Gattanoni are asserting that it doesn't meet the criteria for ARDS, but rather that it's not typical ARDS.

Gattanoni states:

However, the patients with Covid-19 pneumonia, fulfilling the Berlin criteria of ARDS, present an atypical form of the syndrome. Indeed, the primary characteristics we are observing (confirmed by colleagues in other hospitals), is the dissociation between their relatively well preserved lung mechanics and the severity of hypoxemia.

I agree the other cases I know why I got downvoted. This case is less clear.

thanks for writing this out. Good bot!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com