Ask HN: Downvoting | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Downvoting

20 pointsmrvc55 comments

After having a previous account banned following a "bad" comment on a single thread that led to about 10 downvotes because it went against the grain, I'd like to see if there's any consideration of removing downvoting from HN in order to encourage debate while keeping upvoting and flagging intact.

I ask because following that incident I will no longer be presenting dissenting views here, irrespective of perceived value.

What does HN think about removing downvoting?

View on HN

I would be interested in knowing how much of your description is deduction on your part, and how much is received fact from definitive sources. I would be interested in knowing how and why your comment was deemed "bad."

I don't know of any definitive cases where someone made a comment that was appropriate, got vast numbers of down-votes, and then got banned because of it. I know of many people who have complained about being banned, only to discover that it wasn't the case.

I do know of many people who present dissenting views, but present them carefully and constructively, and who do not attract down-votes because of their comments. They work hard to get people to think first, and not to react with a jerk of the knee (so to speak). It is possible. I've seen it. It's not easy, and I suspect not everyone can do it.

In short, it's unclear that your beliefs about the situation are accurate - there are many ways to get these things wrong. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that your view about down-votes may not be accurate.

And no, I don't think down-votes should be removed, although I frequently don't understand how they are being used.

I'll give you one example. Recently, someone posted a link to the new update for Python 2.7.2. At the time, on the python website itself, it stated that this was not a production release and specifically said something along the lines of upgrade at your own risk (I quoted it word for word from the site).

I then made a personal statement saying "I guess I won't be upgrading". I felt that it may help those who didn't scan the page and may miss the quote. And the specific comment I made was one about me, that affects only me reflecting the statement I quoted off the python site. I started getting downvotes for no apparent reason (at least none that I could see reasonably). To avoid it, I just deleted the comment.

If others felt like they didn't care, they were more than welcome to download 2.7.2. I never said anything about why people shouldn't have downloaded it. All I wrote was literally what I just said above.

For the record, it now looks like the site has been updated to reflect that it is a full production release.

Here's one way to think about it, based purely on what you've said. I didn't see your comment, so I don't know for sure:

Did you say anything unobvious? You quoted from the site that they declared it not to be a production release, and you said "OK - not for me." (I paraphrase)

We can easily deduce that, as it's not a production release, then not everyone will want it. Fine. What did your comment really add? It was a personal, conversational, largely content-free, throw-away observation.

This isn't a criticism, I'm merely trying to present a way of thinking that makes it less unreasonable for people to have down-voted a comment.

HN was always intended to be unlike other sites, strongly encouraging meaty content, strongly discouraging light and fluffy comments and submissions. It's been drifting away from that, so people are starting to feel that there's more space for conversational-like comments. There is something of a back-lash from some of the older hands who remember what it was like. Or what they think they remember it was like. More content, less conversation. Discussion, not throw-away remarks.

I can see what you mean and I do understand that vantage point of view. However, I think downvoting something just because it doesn't necessarily add obvious value (which is relative) to the conversation is a mistake. Maybe it's just me but I would think it would make people more hesitant to speak freely just because others may perceive no value from it and getting downvoted as a result. It's very different than downvoting something because it's wrong (like 2+2 is not 5) or because the behavior was unacceptable.

As the grandparent says, this is a purposeful decision in this community. There's a goal of encouraging useful conversation, not just conversation. I do a lot less posting than I might otherwise and I make sure my comments have content before posting them. This hesitation helps ensure that I'm providing value, not just rambling opinion. Having an online community built around presenting value really is a feature, not a bug.

It may be a fine line with some fringe comments being downvoted when perhaps they shouldn't be, but without this it spirals out of control pretty quickly and the entire site becomes useless. Look at the transition that happened to Digg and subsequently Reddit.

These were sites that originally had thoughtful or interesting users that would often be more informative then the content link itself (it's currently like this on HN).

It seems for a while the bad comments get downvoted and removed, but once enough of the community is diluted with a critical mass of 'useless' users, bad comments start being upvoted and the site eventually only consists of the same bad one line jokes, completely devoid of content. At this point most of the old users move somewhere else.

Your comment doesn't add anything to the conversation, you don't supply information on why you wouldn't be upgrading, or what the advantages/disadvantages are to you (or anyone else). You just added meaningless noise to the thread. I'd have downvoted it myself.

It does. As I've said previously, I quoted the line that states its not production release and upgrading is at users own risk. I would think its self explanatory as to why I wouldn't upgrade. As for why it matters... as I've said, some people don't bother to scan the page. They simply click download. It's nice to have a reference pointed out. Maybe it's just me but I don't see it as meaningless as others do. That said, see my other reply above. I think it's bad to discourage people from speaking freely just because its subjectively not adding value to the overall conversation. It's one thing to downvote something that is deserving of a downvote, its another to discourage people from stating their opinions.

Take as an example some comments I made prior to making this post in the climate change thread currently on the frontpage (ice age). Although I have now deleted these, I simply stated that climate change prediction was uncertain due to the number of factors involved. A simple 2 line or so comment in reply to a poster asking why conflicting views existed on the subject. I believe it was of value (it answered his/her question, yet was of course an unpopular opninion to hold. A few minutes later it hit -1.

I won't be repeating the mistake of thinking I can discuss a matter openly here and believe downvoting adds nothing to a discussion (in contrast to upvoting which can be very useful for sorting comments).

That is not a very valuable comment, though. You may have received a better score if you posted a not-so-valuable comment defending a popular position, but that doesn't mean that well-argued defences of unpopular positions receive the same treatment.

Being downvoted has a much higher emotional impact than being upvoted, but it does help with sorting comments, obviously.

It does help in sorting, but i'd suggest it sorts by popularity, not by quality as we tend to assume.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm here to read interesting perspectives on interesting topics. I don't really care to reaffirm a popular opinion, irrespective of quality or substance.

In that case, why do you care about the voting? You will always get the group-think out-voting the carefully reasoned but unpopular. All you need to do is read - perhaps simply skim - all the comments. Find users whose opinion seems to be worth reading, and then seek out their comments.

Removing down-votes won't help the problem you've identified.

That's what I increasingly find myself doing. The downside is that you get less and less exposed to new material; "old" HN would usually surface e.g. tptacek's comments, but there would also be some highly-voted and insightful comments by relative nobodies who were experts in the particular field being discussed. This still happens, but reading the highest-voted comments is becoming less and less worthwhile.

The problem is that down-votes have account consequences. They aren't the mirror opposite of an up-vote. Ten upvotes and a post is just popular, ten downvotes and you might get banned.

If moderation was a flag that some people cared about but that left everything intact then people could ignore it if they wanted.

Do you think you get banned for the downvotes, or for the comment? I don't think anybody (here) is proposing removing the "flag" button...

"Popularity, not quality" is the big problem of any social site. However, removing downvotes doesn't help: "anti-canonical" opinions won't gather many upvotes either. [EDIT: well, hopefully they will. But the trend is that they increasingly don't.]

I remember seeing it, and remember thinking - well, that's pretty content-free.

    I simply stated that climate change prediction was
    uncertain due to the number of factors involved.

Exactly - you didn't really add anything useful to the discussion. We all know it's complicated. We all know there are lots of factors.

I didn't down-vote it, but I can see why others did.

I ask because following that incident I will no longer be presenting dissenting views here, irrespective of perceived value.

Presenting a dissenting opinion is an art form. It takes practice. I do a lot of it. I never really fit in anywhere I go. An awful lot of my views do not fit into whatever the 'typical' assumptions are on a topic and this means that no matter what I say, both sides often wind up kicking the crap out of me.

Some tips, should you decide you would like to try again:

Don't be argumentative about it. Present your views as a standing-on-your-own-two-feet position, not a shooting-down-the-opposition thing.

Show some respect -- agree to disagree, make no attempt to "win people over", much less "win".

Stick to the issues. When you dissent, inevitably there will be enormous social pressure swirling around your lack of going along to get along. Anyone who speaks to you will likely try to put all kinds of crap on you about what they think you are saying. Politely clarify, as many times as it takes.

Judge the timing and context carefully. There is a time and place to offer an alternate point of view. There are other times and places where it's so not worth it.

Word your dissent very carefully. If your goal is to get people to really think and not just punch buttons, like it or not, the burden is on the minority voice to make an effort to communicate effectively. If you are going along with the majority opinion, you can express yourself sloppily and people won't care. But when stating a minority opinion, you must be extra careful to work at communicating effectively and intentionally avoid punching people's buttons so as to have some hope of actually being heard.

People don't downvote dissenting views. They downvote comments that lack value to the discussion.

That was once the case, but I think it's no longer true. Of late I've seen relevant and constructive comments down-voted, and I've been able to discern no reason other than the view expressed was an unpopular one.

If there's a mechanism to indicate a comment is inappropriate, people will use it to indicate disapproval.

If there's no mechanism to indicate a comment is inappropriate, inappropriate and off-topic will abound.

Removing down-votes might help, but I doubt it.

Time and time again, Slashdot's voting system shows that it's superior to these simple up/down voting systems. Not all up votes are equal, nor are all down votes simply because you disagree with the content.

I, and I'm sure many others here also, am unfamiliar with SlashDot's system. Could you point to a summary? Perhaps simply edit your comment to include one.

Thanks.

"Randomly selected moderators assign points of either −1 or +1 to each comment, based on whether the comment is perceived as either normal, offtopic, insightful, redundant, interesting, or troll (among others)."(Wikipedia)

Interesting approach...

Isn't that what the flagging system is for? Removal of spam and inappropriate comments. With upvotes acting as a counter force to filter good content up...?

There's a difference between "int i = INT_MAX + 1 is legal C" (appropriate but factually wrong) and "fsck off, you moron".

...but then, what is the difference between an opinion you disagree with (a "dissenting view") and one that you believe to be factually incorrect? I feel like downvoting the former "factually wrong" comment leads to the behavior that ColinWright is describing: where people downvote anything they disagree with. (One might even argue that this is a fundamental bug in having downvoting as a mechanism.)

People do down-vote anything they disagree with, and there's nothing that can stop that. You can't change people's behavior.

However, removing the ability to down-vote won't really change anything in this regard, except that it will stop people from feeling attacked when they get a down-vote. What would change is that there would be no feedback about genuinely inappropriate comments, and I think that would be bad.

The only thing I can think of is to separate "down-vote" (meaning "of little value") from "inappropriate", label them clearly as such, and have the consequences of a "down-vote" less apparent and less severe. Then you can only trust that the behavior will sort itself as the "community" decides on the meaning of "inappropriate" and "of little value."

I think the "canonical" solution is changing the audience by migrating to a new site...

That may yet happen/be happening.

"Dissenting view" is "Ruby is badly-engineered", "the poor remain poor chiefly because of a lack of discipline" or "PHP is extremely useful": you may or may not agree, but there are serious arguments to be made for those positions (and there is some degree of truth to each of them), and reasonable people can and do disagree on these issues.

On the other hand, "int i = INT_MAX + 1" is factually wrong, and you could link to the standard to prove it. Similarly, "the Sun orbits the earth" is factually wrong (to the extent that it's meaningful, at least).

Yes, there are edge cases, and yes, people tend to think that what they believe in is "obviously" the only right thing to believe in; but that doesn't mean that there's no difference at all.

That is the wish, I do believe the reality is quite different in my experience.

People on HN are way too keen to downvoting. Down votes should be used to filter out bad/thoughtless comments, not viewpoints that don't necessarily agree with yours. I've seen a lot of valuable input grayed out on this site.

I agree except bad/thoughtless can be subjective.

What's wrong with people making subjective judgments about the work of others in a community they share? You have to have a certain level of karma to down vote, which means (theoretically) you have to have done things that created sufficient value for at least some people and hopefully learned about what the existing group values.

Getting total karma count isn't difficult. People whose been around long enough will eventually accummulate the number needed if they interact in any way at all

I'd like to see it disappear, personally. The really bad comments tend to sink to the bottom of the page anyway and increasingly downvoting is being used capriciously and vindictively to ding opinions people just don't happen to agree with.

I agree with this. It irks me a bit that people would downvote simply because they have a different view. Sometimes completely unwarranted when the view or opinion does not affect the outcome of the thread or conversation.

I would rather have downvoting removed completely as well.

I ask because following that incident I will no longer be presenting dissenting views here, irrespective of perceived value.

Having a positive points value is more important to you than interesting debate? Boy do you have your priorities backwards. Don't let a downvote stop you from posting your ideas, that's ridiculous.

Downvoting is used often for dissenting views nowadays. Personally, I don't care that much if my comments are downvoted. This is just another forum on the internet. I'd rather voice my opinion and get downvoted than not voice my opinion at all.

That being said, I'd like to see the downvoting be removed.

Go ahead and downvote my comment.

From http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

    In Comments

    ...

    Please don't bait other users by inviting them
    to downmod you.

Irony is dead.

Did you not perceive the irony in my comment? I guess it was more post-ironic or meta-irony - bit tricky to detect.

How about a limited amount of down-votes allocated to each member to dish out? Possibly tiered based on karma level? Perhaps a member that down-votes a comment loses karma if the comment is then up-voted by other members (ie deemed an unfair down-vote by others)?

The only problem here is that you are assuming only one point of view is correct. So if I down vote you because I believe what you are saying is wrong but a lot of supporters of your view up vote then I will be punished for having a discenting (or at least less popular) view.

Is this what you had in mind?

Therein lies the the problem though. It seems to be the general consensus that people should down vote only for unhelpful / irrelevant / factually incorrect comments, however voting is used to show agreement / disagreement. Before voting, I usually ask myself why I'm doing this. If it's to promote an opinion, I leave it alone.

Exactly. Down-voting is not to show disagreement, it's to cull comments that don't contribute to the discussion. What I'm proposing would hopefully make people question their motives before down-voting.

Perhaps it's also about _how_ you present a view. Using words such as "perhaps" and "consider" allow people to more easily receive the thought that you are attempting to convey.

Am I missing something? Isn't one way to fix downvoting to make them subtractive for both parties?

Then if something is on-topic but content-free, why would I bother to flag it? How do I get rewarded for doing the right thing? Why should I not just leave it to someone else?

The idea is to reward correct behavior, whereas your suggestion punishes it.

Yeah, you're probably right. I was hoping for the simple solution, but came up short. I can say that I personally wouldn't mind sacrificing my own karma to downvote someone who really deserves it.

I wonder if you're referring to the Stack Overflow decision to do this. They've made several strange modifications to their reputation system since the beginning, and I'm not sure any of them have really added value: paying for downvotes, daily reputation caps, etc.

All of these tweaks to the reputation system are to encourage a certain kind of behaviour, but I'm not sure it's the right kind of behaviour. Does it make sense to stop someone from providing answers when they are clearly good at it?

I find that, for myself, when I cast a downvote on Stack Overflow, I see an opportunity for 9 more free downvotes. (I'm a little OCD about having a score that's divisible by 10.)

How do you even downvote, do you need a certain level of karma?

Yes, you need some amount of karma. This was 200 at one point, but I seem to recall that it's ~500 now.

In the grand scheme of things, why on Earth do you care if an account was down-voted?

Personally, I see this as a bad sign that people in general are very immature and do not have an adult grasp on reality. People who care about getting 'down-voted' frighten me.

Comment trolled perhaps? It's hard to say. ColinWright: are you really this bored with life?

I like to contribute, but really.. I don't care what people thing of my comments, they are just comments on a random website.

This comment would be more persuasive if it weren't coming from a newly-created account.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com