Ask HN: Would HN be better if downvoting required justification? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Would HN be better if downvoting required justification?

8 pointsmartin-t20 comments

Long time lurker, I always enjoyed the technical discussions here but lately I feel the need to comment more.

Usually, the experience is positive but there are instances where the discussion seems to settle, I have a few points on some comments, then come back a few hours or a day later and my comments are downvoted into negative numbers without any new replies.

1) This doesn't feel like organic traffic. Normal votes (both up and down) come in steadily, the downvotes come in all at once, sometimes they appear even after just an hour or two.

2) I feel like they devalue discussions into a popularity contest. If you disagree with me, that's fine but you should be able to articulate the disagreement. If people just disagree and feel the need to let me know, they should have to process what I wrote in their brain sufficiently to form a coherent reason.

View on HN

I don't like down voting. too. But have to accept that - where agreement is sought, there also a disagreement is possible. What I don't like is when something has been down voted, but not told why. That's a bad style from down voters. So, a thing like "no down without why" could be a solution. But as said, up votes do not need a why, so should down votes, too, be possible without a why. That's free willy in my eyes. One can't be forced to talk :)

> up votes do not need a why

The asymmetry bothers me too. But then upvoting seems to imply both subjective agreement and objective correctness as well as endorsement to make it more visible. I would like to see those separated too, lesswrong is trying something like this but whenever I read the descriptions, I always feel like both buttons do the same thing so I think it's a good idea implemented badly.

Downvoting can mean any number of things too, just making people separate subjective from objective could have interesting dynamics, especially if claiming something is objectively false was visible to others to disincentivize using it wrongly.

To be clear, I don't expect anything to change, AFAIK the site hasn't changed in any major way for years.

I also wonder if there are discussion sites where this is the case. It's certainly not any of the major ones.

It's one of the things I've long desired all discussion places to have; unlikely to be added to something as conservative as HN, but I'd strongly support the idea.

(I know it's an old thread, but I ran into it)

I think that up voting should require a reason, too, and that a chronological mode should be added (even if it is not the default setting).

Another forum I frequent has only "recommendations" and the rare flagging that goes to a jury. Replies push an OP to the top of the most recently replied posts list.

It also allows self-deletion and post-deletion, no time limit.

So, while there is a visible change log, there is none for deletion, and one can take the context away from a troll post-facto.

No downvotes, only flagging for cause (there's an itemized list ) and jury. So, the jury knows why.

Obscurity is the "penalty" in most cases for lack of interest. Flame wars just refresh the most recently replied date.

That sounds interesting, would you mind sharing the name of the forum? (Unless you want to keep it small to avoid Eternal September.)

It's politically oriented, so I don't want to start a flame war here. I'll keep it underground for now.

Like HN, it's well moderated, so it's a friendly and non-toxic place. I participate in no others, for that very reason.

At least people can't see vote counts, on Reddit it encourages groupthink.

It definitely does but it's not without drawbacks - you can't detect groupthink as easily. This is one of the things where people can benefit when thinking slow but many default to thought-follower mode when in fast mode.

You also can't even see who downvoted, even on your comments. Somebody would probably try to justify it by saying it's to prevent revenge downvotes but upon second thought, that just exposes several bigger issues:

- it leaves the commenter with no way to fight back against the downvoter who can downvote as much as he wants, even every post by the same person - each downvote has the same value, regardless how many you make

I am certain (this is not a figure of speech) an algoritmic solution is difficult but people in small groups have evolved rather sophisticated mechanisms for detecting conflict, malice and deception, I'd like to see approaches that try to scale them up.

Be more resilient.

HN pussy foots enough. That pussy footing is what causes pent-up voting - its trend followers and "i agree/disagree with this"ers not having the gall to cast first vote.

Justifying this will make it even worse, as a wall of text will be needed before anyone does anything. Then you'll get downvoted by the trend followers citing the wall of text dissenter rather than thinking still.

Not saying that should appear as normal comments, hiding them by default would make them less attractive both for wall-of-texters and trend-followers but would still make people risk exposing their ignorance.

Could also be hidden until you have voted.

I think people do not understand what the voting system is for. Its 3-state system.

1) Good content, you like it, you upvote it.

2) Bad content, harmful, misleading, downvote it.

3) Good or ok content, you dont like it, you do NOT downvote it.

The 3th point is most importand. You have right do disagree with someone as someone has right to express his opinion. As long as its not harmful or abusive, you do NOT touch it.

I used to think that way too but eventually i understood that rules have no power unless they are enforced and this rule is not being enforced (and unenforceable).

Voting systems create incentives, people's behavior is shaped by incentives.

If a voting system allows manipulating conversations (for example by influencing where a post appears and therefore how many people see it), people who benefit from manipulating the conversation will do so.

---

EDIT: Also, if you think it's an N-state system, it should have N+1 states because the default is "didn't read / don't care". Apart from this state, there are at least 2 important axes: 1) factually correct / incorrect 2) agree / disagree.

That’s not how people use it though. "I disagree" is correct use of the downvote.

What makes your way correct and other people wrong?

Content correctness. If content is correct, but have low amount of votes, it just means its niche. Thats all. Still, it can be usefull to someone. If its downvotes to oblivion, it becomes filtered. I always tought that is is how voting system is should be used...

> I have a few points on some comments, then come back a few hours or a day later and my comments are downvoted into negative numbers without any new replies.

The issue here is caring about points. Just enjoy the site, actually take in the content and ideas here, and you will be so much better served than caring about points.

The most interesting/thought provoking comments are the prize for you, not the number by your handle

Votes influence where you comment appears and therefore how many people see it.

If there is systematic manipulation going on, we should look for ways to fight against it.

If people have incorrect opinions (yes, there is such a thing - e.g. an opinion that is based either on false information or on correct information and a faulty chain of reasoning), we should try to correct their mistake.

> If there is systematic manipulation going on, we should look for ways to fight against it.

I'd love to support this energy, but part of being serious is priorities

This energy needs to be put into something more meaningful than a chat site

> If people have incorrect opinions (yes, there is such a thing - e.g. an opinion that is based either on false information or on correct information and a faulty chain of reasoning), we should try to correct their mistake.

We? Speak for yourself, please. I'm only chatting to you because it seems you're focused on something meaningless: virtual points on the internet.

If you have something worth hearing, say it. People will listen if your message is important. Otherwise, patrolling the internet or worrying about post votes (just listen to what we're talking about!!) seems like a waste of our limited time breathing.

> I'd love to support this energy, but part of being serious is priorities

This energy needs to be put into something more meaningful than a chat site

It's not a chat site, it's a discussion site, and some people get influenced by what they read.

Of course not a ton of people, but still, the discussions on it do have the chance of having some effect

Reply on news.ycombinator.com