Ask HN: Why should we upvote or downvote a comment? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why should we upvote or downvote a comment?

7 pointsArdit2012 comments

With submission I suppose you up vote them because you like them? I do not understand how can you not up vote a comment you agree with though, or down vote one you disagree with.

Say someone comments about the liberal arts education being a good thing and old people are just deluding themselves in thinking that their education was much better and that our education is obsolete.

This comment I would up vote because I agree with it. If someone said Education is a complete failure I would down vote it because I disagree with it.

Apparently this is infuriating to some? Does that mean that we should not up vote comments we agree with?

In short, why do you think a comment should be up voted or down voted?

View on HN

Speaking personally (and I know a few people have said the same in the past) I upvote comments that are constructive or that make a good argument and downvote trollish, rude or "lol" style comments.

Irrespective of if I agree with their message or not.

Examples. Take these to comments I made the other day:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=675136

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=675230

The first was rightfully downvoted because it all but amounted to a rant. In the second I made a much more reasoned point (but with basically the same conclusion as the first) and it got an upvote.

In my eyes that is the HN effect working :)

Although all of that said I have noticed a tendency for upvotes to snowball sometimes - and for some comments to obviously be voted on based on agreement/disagreement *(not that there is a specific rule against that of course!).

I agree that this is the right way to think about it: I upvote comments I think others should read (for benefit, enjoyment, or a well-reasoned counter-argument to my view). Sometimes, however, due to the discussion at hand I simply use the vote to indicate "me, too" -- especially when it's a discussion that seems to be coming to (or trying to) come to a consensus. I certainly don't want to submit an "I agree" comment; I just up-vote. It often seems like I'm up-voting agreement more than the well-reasonedness or interest of the comment, often due to the nature of the topic.

For example, on a "rate my web site" thread where somebody makes a suggestion, and I simply agree, I'll up-vote without adding to the thread.

Upvote if you want the comment to appear higher up in the page of comments; Downvote if you want the comment to appear lower down in the page of comments and be a lighter shade of grey.

With the added warning that your actions will have an effect on the voting and commenting behaviours of other hacker news readers in the long term, but this will mostly align well with the above affects.

Edit: I should add that most people upvote differently on Hacker News than they do on Reddit, because of the second effect whereby they might not necessarily think a comment is rude, but if it doesn't add anything to discussion they will downvote in the hope that the comments in the long run will be more helpful.

The two extremes are:

1) everyone upvotes to agree (and only to agree), and downvotes to disagree (and only to disagree). Then the score on a contribution measures its proximity to the average opinion.

2) everyone upvotes signal and downvotes noise. Then the score on a contribution measures its relevance to HN readers.

Since I don't care about average opinions but much about relevance, I upvote and downvote by rule 2).

I upvote comments that make me think, tell me something I didn't know, or have an interesting perspective. There is, of course, a personal bias towards comments that I agree with. I try hard to vote objectively regardless of my own views. But I'm only human.

You can't tell people how/when to upvote/downvote/do nothing. It will not work and people will try to game the system. People will vote based on instinct.

For example I upvote what I like/agree with. I downvote stupid or wrong stuff.

That being said, I think the HN community has regulated itself remarkably well so that truth/content gets sufficient votes and falsehood/noise gets downvoted, and heavily so if needed.

I see it less as agreeing or disagreeing, and more as is it a new idea, new perspective, new spin, something worth thinking about. I would not learn anything from a comment about liberal arts education being crap. If there was an interesting reasoning behind the comment, it might be another matter.

Sometimes I vote up things I disagree with, because I am interested in the opinion of the HN community on the issue.

I upvote comments: that provide useful information; that I agree with, and writing my own comment would only be clutter; that I disagree with, but think is well-presented.

I downvote comments: that fairly strongly don't add anything to the conversation; that contain a high percentage of profanity without saying anything useful; that I disagree with and are not well-presented (e.g., trolls).

But not always. Most comments I don't do anything with. If I see a moderately insightful comment with 1 point, I'll probably upvote it. If I see a similarly moderately insightful comment with 4 points, I may think that's high enough and leave it alone. If I see a moderately trollish comment that's at -3, and I didn't think it was that bad, I might upvote it, not because I like it, but because I think -2 is sufficiently low.

On the whole, I try to vote such that the more I want to see similar comments, the higher the score; and the less I want to see similar comments, the lower the score.

Understand that the point of the moderation system here is to promote civil discussion. The protocol most people (try) to follow here is a natural result from that.

I have a policy of only downmodding posts that are not a part of legitimate discussion. This includes obvious trolls, but also any post where I don't think the post contributes anything, such as an ad-hominem attack.

I do not downmod a post just because I disagree with it. If I disagree with the post, but it's not an obvious troll or incendiary in any way, I leave it alone. I see downmodding as a means to keep discussions civil, not to show disapproval with a point of view.

In contrast, I upmod posts I agree with. This means that a single control - voting up or down - has an asymmetric meaning for me.

I'll mod something up if it's on-topic, well thought-out, and I agree with it. I'll only mod something down if it's blatantly off topic and rude/trollish. If I simply don't agree with what they said, but they said it in useful way, I'll just leave it be.

I'm all about modding the people who post goatse links down into negative oblivion, but I think it kind of stifles discussion if you downmod simply because you don't happen to agree. Instead of dog-piling someone for a dissenting opinion, take the extra 30 seconds to write a response. It'll enrich the discussion.

Discussed before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=147098

The up & down arrows on your page are yours, and yours alone. Do whatever you want with 'em, whatever feels right.

I generally upvote comments that make an interesting point in an intelligent way. I tend to favor concision, since I don't upmod (or downmod) something if I'm not compelled to read the whole thing.

I generally upvote anything I respond to, even in disagreement, unless it's obnoxious (in which case, I downvote).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com