Poll YC: Mandatory Replies. | Hacker News Reader

Poll YC: Mandatory Replies.

6 pointsjlopez23 comments

I think that every vote for downgrade must have a reply.

I would like to know your comments!

No. My least favorite part of HN is all the meta-debates about karma, downvotes, "is this HN?", etc.

Can we just skip all the meta-debates, and focus on interesting hacker news? So what if you have 50 less karma than you think you should? So what if there are 4 articles that you think aren't hacker news? (Just don't click on or upvote them).

Honestly I find discussing this topic (regulating forum karma) pretty interesting. Granted, articles that are toned to imply someone's whining about being downmodded are kind of frustrating, but I don't think the overall idea is any less "relevant to hackers" than any number of other things that are accepted here.

The various approaches to karma, when well applied, have the ability to mitigate some pretty challenging social problems (trolling, etc). Math applied to meatspace issues seems like a geeky topic with the power to make a real difference in peoples lives. To wit: http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html

I don't even know how to "downvote". My interface only shows up arrows. I agree that simplicity is key assuming you can rely on community decency.

You need a certain level of karma before it becomes a issue. I think it's 50. Possibly 100 or it's 50 and then you can flag submissions at 100. Anyway, there are cutoffs.

I was not thinking in karma, actually I don't care about it.

My point is that hacker news is to share knowledge or ideas and if you are going to say that you don't like a post then you should share with the community your point of view so we can learn from each other.

then you should share with the community your point of view so we can learn from each other

This is not the third grade, and our discussions are not chewing gum or a note being passed. If someone has something to add, they will. This is already possible. Everyone can comment on any comment.

You are asking to formalize something that already exists, and to do so in a stupidly paternalistic manner. Personally, I don't come to HN to provide feedback on every dumbass post that I think is dumb. (Though I very, very, rarely downvote. I'm far more likely to call something stupid in a comment and explain why...but I don't think anyone should be forced to explain why they think something is stupid. A downvote is a much more concise and efficient way to say it. I just happen to be a blowhard that enjoys the sound of my own voice, and so I comment a lot more than I vote.)

And, I agree with the above: Meta-discussion about karma and voting is just annoying. Stop doing it. It's irritating, and this kind of suggestion comes up every couple of weeks or so and gets shouted down because most of us disagree pretty strongly with it...just as this one has been.

It sounds good in principle but in practice I think it'd add a lot of noise to threads.

Yeah, it would be needlessly noisy in public form. However, it can be helpful for people to get feedback directly.

Would a private reply that only the submitter can see be valuable? It would help the community give direct feedback to the submitter or commenter without adding noise.

Seriously, are you really taking your posts to HN as so important than they need to receive review from peers? It's a forum. It is informal, it is not a vetted peer-reviewed journal. If someone wants to reply, they will, and it should (generally) be public (and if it shouldn't, the responder will look up your email address and send you a message, assuming that's possible)...if they don't, it's dumb to try to force them to (privately or otherwise).

I was not thinking in karma, actually I don't care about it, at least not now but my point is that hacker news is to share knowledge or ideas and if you are going to say that you don't like a post then you should share with the community your point of view so we can learn from each other. (btw: sorry for repeat this post)

I didn't mention karma in the comment you're replying to. I understand your suggestion, and I disagree with it very strongly, and I said so and explained why.

A simpler solution is to upvote comments you think are unfairly downvoted.

I think it would be neat if downvotes took a point of karma away from the downvoter as well.

That would provide incentive for the downvoting user to comment so that people would have a chance to mod him up to recover it.

Yes, yes, I know "don't pay attention to your karma", but it's one of the primary pieces of information about our posts/comments that we're given by reddit/this system.

The site would function identically if article, comment, and user karma values were all hidden. I wonder what the impact would be on the dialog.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=298768

Charge money for voting. For example: every 2 votes costs 1 Karma point.

There are lots of other interesting Karma suggestions in the main Requests thread:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=363

Redundant. I only downvote posts that I think are outright flames, or otherwise completely counterproductive to conversation. Downvoting is not a way of saying "I disagree with you," it's a way of saying "You're detracting from real conversation." Explaining downvotes only adds to the noise.

I do, however, upvote to agree. If I disagree but I think it's a legitimate comment, I don't do anything.

This doesn't work because it would mean every dumb "FIRST!" type comment would result in a chorus of posts saying "I voted you down because you just said 'first'." This is much worse than simply downvoting such posts into oblivion.

Oh, and this kind of post is also against the site guidelines:

Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

No. If people want to downgrade, don't vote up.

Hells no. Don't be so bloody sensitive. Your HN karma is not a measure of your worth...accept downvotes and move on.

Doesn't matter. Dumb idea is dumb.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=297260

ericwaller 21 days ago | link | parent | flag

It'd be interesting if a down vote were actually a special case of reply and required an explanation.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=57134

aswanson 374 days ago | link | parent | flag

You could make down votes more expensive by forcing someone to type a rationale of why

Feature Requests:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=363

Reply on news.ycombinator.com