A couple of negative points about commenting on HackersNews

My 2 cents at 24 units of.. whatever it's called here. (i don't care)

Internet points don't add value to my life.

I don't come here for "salty opinions" I come here for polite, insightful, hopefully entertaining conversation. Endless "salty opinions" aren't any of those three things.

You can disagree without being "salty" -- and this website owes you nothing. You have freedom! You can go to some other popular website where downvoting is the norm.

> Internet points don't add value to my life.

Absolutely. I don't want points. But I'm collecting negative points whilst giving honest and authentic contributions. I'm being judged and found wanting. Why?

I don't mind hearing or being deconstructed (or ignored for that matter). But why take one on what I have to say, when I'm being straightforward? I'm acting in good faith.

It feels like I have to be part of the 'hive mind' or f* off like you suggest. But I like this site and what's discussed.

> could this also not be made easily accessible?

Google anything you want to know. There are quite a few sites/blogs with info about HN. The HN site is lightweight, people like it that way. There is a guidelines page, which you should pay a lot more attention to (I looked at your comments). There's a lot of wisdom in those guidelines. Put more effort into writing good comments. Some of yours are good, but half are downvoted, and it's not hard to see why. Having trouble reaching 501 points is a problem of someone who arrived here yesterday. Focus, for now at least, on what you can give HN, not what you can get. Does your comment leave the page better than you found it? If not, delete it. (e.g. complaints about being downvoted never add to a page) I do that quite a lot! - write a comment, then when finished, see it adds little or nothing, so delete it and move on. It was enough to write it.

Try to avoid the "I'm downvoted because I'm right" disease, which you seem to be developing a strong case of. Consider for a moment that that problem is you, not HN.

Even after you've done that, if you focus on political comments, as you seem to do – particularly of the "All government is slavery" kind, to quote from one of your comments – you may still attract more downvotes than upvotes. I suspect there are far better sites for such discussions.

I like the lightweight element of the site. I'm not asking for anything except the rule sheet though.

Can I say, you're a bit rude. I think you may disagree with my 'political' comments, but then put words in my mouth. I like meaningful engagement, and - yes I have my (reasoned) views and put them out there to be challenged and discussed. But I don't "know I'm right" - I actually like to be set straight when I'm wrong.

Really, your comments shows that HN is all about a consensus of opinion. You're saying I should police my own opinion, and even delete comments if its not going along with the flow or something.

> Really, your comments shows that HN is all about a consensus of opinion.

This seems another example of the criticism-proving-you-right disease. I thought I gave a load of useful advice.

> You're saying I should police my own opinion, and even delete comments if its not going along with the flow or something.

That's nothing like what I said, is it. Yes, everyone should "police" their own opinions, if you want to put it like that – for example, some comment triggers you and you write an angry response. After writing it, read it again with a cooler head and before posting it decide if it really adds to HN, or subtracts. I often find that just writing it is enough – I learnt something by writing it, or got my anger/resentment out of my system. (Maybe you think 100% of the comments you write are worth posting; for me it's far less.) I said nothing about a consensus or "going with the flow", and don't mean anything like that.

I'm not writing in an emotional way - I'm not angry or upset, or need to cool down, or any of the things I think you are mis-ascribing to me.

I'm writing in a way that proposes or advances an argument or a position. It might not be the same position as the majority hold, but it is my considered and explainable one.

I'm absolutely not saying 'I need to be right' - which is criticism you are levelling. I'm having conversations that explore, or trying to. I learn from being wrong, and I'm happy - HAPPY - to be corrected.

All the best.

I didn't mean you are angry or upset etc, sorry I wasn't clearer.

I didn't say that you "need to be right".

You've repeated that you are happy to be corrected, "set straight". It just seems that you thought nothing I said was in the least bit helpful, so I never got to see that! I don't believe it. I was just "a bit rude", "mis-ascribed" many things to you, "put words in your mouth", etc. I get what seems a similar unpleasant experience interacting with you that you get from HN – please consider that it's projection, i.e. that you are the problem.

Lol. Passive aggressive much?

> I didn't mean you are angry or upset etc, sorry I wasn't clearer.

Say what you think. You think I'm dumb cos I didn't take the point that you repeatedly made. That you think I'm the problem. Be honest! Stop couching.

> I didn't say that you "need to be right".

But, you did! You said: "Try to avoid the "I'm downvoted because I'm right" disease". I have a disease, in your opinion, and its that I'm right.

> You've repeated that you are happy to be corrected, "set straight". It just seems that you thought nothing I said was in the least bit helpful, so I never got to see that!

But I really don't find what you say helpful! Sorry.

If I have an argument or a discussion point, I'm free to state it. At least, I think I should be. I'm happy to engage with a rational argument, and present a case. And if my PoV is found wanting, I'll embrace truth and reality. But your 'answer' is that I internalise an external problem. Delete my comment say, to not make a fuss.

But no, I'm not going to give up on reason or rational thinking, because the majority thinks something other. I'm hear to learn and share knowledge. I'm confident in my line of thought, that its rational. I'm very far from internalising or quashing my rational thinking for the sake of offending the majority, who I happen to think are frequently in error.

And, by the way, the majority really can be in error. It may feel like a comfortable consensus is occurring here on HN. I'm saying that this could be on account of the management of the site - certain uncomfortable realities cannot be discussed. Living in a bubble is fine in a way, but absence of knowledge won't make reality go away. I'm hoping the scientific method may force you (and me) to accept reality, even if we may wish for something else.

By and large, none of these things are really all that "negative". You're talking about nits at best. And I'd argue that HN is the way it is intentionally, based on the audience the site owners want (or wanted) to appeal to.

That said, there is an unofficial guide that has been assembled, that documents most of the kinds of things you're asking about.

See:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16437973

Thanks!

I generally see people on here aligning with the intent of the site (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) not being downvoted. Which is to say, salty opinions, presented intelligently and politely, seem to do just fine for the most part. The downvote here is supposed to mean not that someone disagrees with you, but that you aren’t following the guidelines, seem to be arguing in poor faith, etc.

There’s also a cap on the number of downvotes a comment can receive, so you can only get I think -4 points no matter how bad of a comment you make.

You’ll also notice that upvotes for submissions only count for half the points as upvotes on comments. In general, the system is designed to promote reasoned, deeper discussion, and for the most part I think it does it well (or at least better than most online discussion forums).

The only “superpower” is downvoting. It doesn’t take all that many points to achieve. My understanding is they want folks to be familiar with the site’s guidelines and standards before giving them power to downvote.

Regarding the style guide, I don’t know of an official source, but if you go for markdown without links, you’ll generally be fine, and you can always edit your posts if needed.

> The downvote here is supposed to mean not that someone disagrees with you, but that you aren’t following the guidelines, seem to be arguing in poor faith, etc.

Yeah you would think this, but there was an Ask HN thread maybe a month or two ago asking why people downvote and disagreement in opinion was a surprisingly popular justification.

Sure, people will often use it that way. I think this is one of the reasons they cap downvotes for a given comment, so the “pile-on” effect doesn’t hurt your overall point total too badly.

Which is to say, salty opinions, presented intelligently and politely, seem to do just fine for the most part.

I've found that to be true for the most part. It's not quite the case though, that all opinions will be treated fairly even when presented intelligently and politely. In my own experience, I've found that certain comments will be downvoted more or less no matter what.

Thank you for the info.

But, that's just it! I think I'm polite. I have an opinion. If I don't see others making the point I have, I go ahead and make it. I'm happy to be challenged, I'll reply, and take corrections on the chin.

But that's not what's happening. I'm being downvoted (I think) because of the filtered consensus disagrees with my line of thought, not that I'm not following guidelines. Albeit, how could I follow guidelines they aren't even published! I had to create this post to, to get a link to another post where this is discussed!

Answers from the thread with thanks:

news guidelines here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

format doc here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc

an unofficial guide here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16437973

In summary: You need 501 karma to downvote a comment.

Stories fall from the front page when they get many flags. You need only 31 karma to flag.

When a story gets much more comments than upvotes, it gets a penalty.

The mods can sink a story, or remove the penalty of the flags or the automatic penalty.

PS, I would encourage any others who share my frustration as the lack of clarity about the process on HN to comment. Or to set me straight about how I missed the links! Cheers.

The instruction for formatting is difficult to find, even if you know it exist https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc tl;dr: not too much

You need 501 karma to downvote a comment. I think the threshold is a feature, not a bug.

Try to avoid political threads. Each one has his/her opinion and wants to donwvote any alternative.

Technical threads are more safe. Sometime people get downvoted for being wrong, but I don't like it so I upvote gray comments (unless they are offensive or very wrong).

Anyway, I use the downvote very seldom, perhaps only once per day. What do you want to downvote?

The stories fall from the front page when they get many flags. You need only 31 karma to flag. Also when a story gets much more comments that upvotes, it gets a penalty. The mods can sink a story, or remove the penalty of the flags or the automatic penalty.

> Try to avoid political threads. Each one has his/her opinion and wants to donwvote any alternative.

This cannot be overstated. Things are weird now: so many folks immediately think you're the devil if you have a countering perspective. Of all things in the social space, this worries me the most.

Very useful - thanks!

I don't want to downvote. I want to know why my comments get downvoted! How does one get that superpower? Because it absolutely seems that I bump into some sort of consensus thinking.

I mean, I've been posting in the last months pretty regularly, I'm posting my genuine arguments and positions, that I have come to over years, and I can support. I think they are interesting ideas - or at least they are authentic. And yet 4 months in, I'm currently at 26 points, having scaled the heady heights of 35 points!

Jeez, this seems to be a tough audience for people who I think should be open to interesting, unusual and perhaps challenging ideas!

> Try to avoid political threads. Each one has his/her opinion and wants to downvote any alternative.

Believe it or not, I don't think I'm political. I think I have a philosophical position. I really don't care about left or right. My philosophical position is of a skeptical bent. But, yep, this is misinterpreted as being political.

Cheers.

PS

From what you say, it seems that mods are pretty powerful. They can turn a story around or bury it or whatever.. That is all invisible to us users, right?

This is to say, we can't say whether the story is authentically popular or unpopular, as we don't have that information.

Gah! What happened to free speech?

I know that this is a private site... I know.

But still, can't we even know that we're being manipulated? Is this our life now, where we cannot be trusted to make judgements for ourselves, but instead all information must be massaged and managed for us?!!?

The mods can literally unplug the sever or modify the sorting algorithm to use the reverse order, or whatever they want.

Yes.

I just don't get why its accepted or somehow morally ok to silently manage information for others.

The key word is: 'silently'. A mod should be able to manage the conversation, kick people off, delete comments etc, fine - but there should be a note to indicate how whatever bit was impacted. Otherwise, moderators are able to act like gods over a conversation or a forum, accountable to no one.

Well, I suppose they will have to judge themselves, but I don't think they are really going to take themselves to task!

If people are acting in good faith, they may present information that may be true AND unpleasant to accept or not per consensus opinion. The scientific method should accept the various viewpoints and converge to a better picture of reality. But that can't happen if dissenting voices are closed down.

It always surprises me that scientific thinkers, such as there are on this site, are not strongly in support of lots of voices. I don't mean that HN should become a popularity contest or something, but that honest sharing of curiosity and personal experience should be encouraged, not silenced.

Seriously, apart from some crap sites (eg 4chan), where can the 'unthinkable' be raised and discussed sensibly nowadays? I don't think there is anywhere.

They don't delete the comments. You can see the [dead] comments if you enable "showdead" in your profile.

thanks