HN: How does one get feedback on comments?

It's really not that important why your comment got up or downvoted. So don't get all worked up about it. Just smile, and go write a new comment on something else.

I find myself constantly glancing at my karma score. I have to remind myself that it does not really matter.

I find my better comments begin with a short initial response, and then after a line break, I go into detail about my thought process if need be.

I agree and I've suggested elsewhere that there be an option to disable the damn karma score. When it can be seen on every page it's distracting and feels like it's turning the whole thing into a karma whoring game. I try to resist it and write whatever I want but still.

If there was an option to permanently disable display of my karma, I'd select that. I can get recent feedback from the "threads" page.

I find that it helps if you distance yourself from your account somewhat. When I posted under an account related to my name and my activities, I felt pressured to think and act a certain way and I monitored my karma a bit closely. Using a blank-name account stopped me from worrying so much.

I think this would be a neat project for a GreaseMonkey script-- those who want to see it can, those who don't, won't.

Not everyone uses firefox. However, it could be an option like "noprocrast".

Don't let browser market share keep you from doing something you think might be cool. "Not everyone uses firefox" is the inverse logic of "IE6 is still used, so we have to cater to the lowest common denominator". Let the capabilities of your tools be part of your inspiration! Some things are too cool not to do, and some things get done even if there is no capability to do them.

> What do you think?

I think that some are too concerned with these things and/or think that they're "owed" something that they're not. (Many in the latter group know why their comment was downvoted and an interesting fraction of them are just looking for an opportunity to argue that the downvote was undeserved.)

Downvotes mean that someone didn't like your comment. Be grateful for that - in the real world, people silently put the asshole label next to your name. Sometimes it's you and sometimes it's them. Only one of those is under your control.

I like it, but I'd want to think a lot more about the way it feels, how it works, and other, perhaps unintended, consequences.

I've mused about this recently: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=662052

This scheme would also force those moderating to think enough about their reasons to choose a tag. I am annoyed when I am down-modded for an unpopular argument that adds to the discussion that was seemingly selected for its editorial content rather than its lack of utility. Would someone down-mod me if they had to either (1) choose a false tag or (2) choose a correct tag like "Comment does not adhere to my political views on the matter"? Should up-mods be tagged as well?

I like the idea.

It sounds similar to the labels used by Wikipedia which point out problems with articles (e.g. "This article needs additional citations for verification").

This is the Slashdot way: each mod has a label (interesting, insightful, funny, overrated, underrated, troll etc.). A total score can be for example 5 Insightful, made up of 3 Insightful and 2 Interesting.

Slashdot's system is fairly complex, and pretty successful. But on HN the accent is on fewer members and overall quality, and less on a complex system. And it's working pretty well so far.

why worry? I mean seriously chances are your comment will be upvoted. And if for some stupid reason it gets downvoted, you are only out 8 karma points at most.

Hardly something that'll ruin you or your overall karma score...and its not like Karma even does anything, it affects nothing, so even if you get downvoted, you shouldn't really care.

I came to the same conclusion. I downvote only if the comment is offensive. If it is wrong or I disagree (and I care) I add my own comment. Downvoting by itself adds nothing to the discussion. I think the current system works remarkably well and I dont feel the need for changes. I fear clutter more.

I agree that the current system is reasonably good, but how and why it works is cultural. That means that as HN gets more popular it will work less and less well.

I'm frequently mystified by why a comment gets down-mud, and wish desperately that there were a simple mechanism for people to tell me why. I have no complaint, I accept that someone feels the comment should be down-mud, but I'd like to learn why they feel like that, and what it is they think I got wrong. Maybe I'll disagree, but at least I can learn from it.

"down-mud"?

Yes.

+ Thunk is the past tense of think,

+ lunk is the past tense of link (I lunk to that page)

+ cluck is the past tense of click (I cluck that link)

... and "down-mud" is the past tense of "down-mod".

I admit curiosity too. Sometimes it's obvious. One-liners dont fare too well, alas. Other times it's a poorly reasoned argument. That's usually apparent when someone below points out the errors of my ways. I think down modding because of a differing opinion is a bit rude. When I dont like someone's opinion, I upmod someone else.

What do you think?

I think your idea has already been implemented by Slashdot and if you like seeing labels like "+5, Insightful" you could go participate there, instead.

poeple could always you know, reply to the comment?

I disagree with further complexity. Generally if people have a good counter to your argument, and if you seem to be someone worth arguing with, they'll pipe up with a dissenting view. And if you're really confused, a short reply saying "I'm genuinely curious as to why I'm being downmodded - anyone care to explain their decision?" will rarely attract spillover downmods. Unless the comment was really egregious ..

If we're brainstorming how to improve HN's commenting system, here's an idea: a limit to upvotes. I propose 32. Beyond that, upvotes only raise position on the page. Thoughts?