I see the reasons to downvote a comment as:
[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8148068
This includes what I assume the "mean/racist/sexist" choice refers to -- obnoxiousness that raises the level of antagonism with no corresponding up-side. It also includes not only the useless comments (thanks, cool story bro), but also the kind of silly joke comments that invariably turn into threads where the participants are primarily showcasing their cleverness and entertaining themselves, rather than shedding light on the subject. Everyone is generally better off letting reddit be the designated location for that sort of thing.
Eg they misrepresented a fact, not presented a dissenting opinion.
To me it does, and I downvote that.
Some comments are extremely wrong, as "If you plant a fried potato, you get a fried potato tree." I downvote this kind of comments.
I'd also say that if at that point no one else has corrected the person, you should.
> Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
The current method of downvoting appears to work just fine. I can't recall the last time that I saw a truly valuable, substantive argument downvoted into oblivion at the bottom of the page.
For example, any time there is an article about email marketing, there are always people on HN who post how they hate getting commercial email, all commercial email is spam, all email newsletters are spam, etc.
I often downvote these because they add nothing of substance to a discussion of the article itself; they're just people staking their claim to a particular opinion.
It's fine to have opinions (we all do), but if the thread is about a particular technique or technology to improve email marketing, then a bald "I hate it all" statement doesn't add anything.
Editing your comment, or adding additional comments with things like "why the downvotes ... ?" or "not sure why I am being downvoted because ..." or "you can downvote all you want, but ..."
By all means edit posts and post followups and continue the discussion, but please, please let's stop injecting literal references to the scoring system into the conversation itself. It's distracting at best, and really narcissistic at worst.
I would greatly appreciate it if downvoters also added their explanation if it merits it.
OTOH, I've been downvoted a few times for things that, viewed from the outside, can be seen as flamebait-ish or useless discussion.
I've also had the opposite, people that, instead of downvoting, ask "did you answer the wrong post?" (has happened) or if I misunderstood the comment I was replying to (has also happened), and I greatly appreciate that.
edit:
example of a comment where I was downvoted, and it was probably flamebait-ish
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8135011
example of me replying to a wrong post:
...and the downvoter didn't deign to explain his downvote (on a post explicitly asking for explanations).
Edit: and downvoted as well. I thought a "meta" discussion such as this would be the appropriate place. It seems it's not.
I had to go back 80 days to get to a visibly downvoted comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7733672
Which comments are downvoted for disagreement?
My clearly annoyed comment a couple of days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8135515 started out underwater a bit, flowed up to 7 and then back down to 5, which means someone's clicking downmod. I think these downmods are fine because I wasn't entirely careful in writing that post (whiskey will do that).
I tend to think of downmods just like the catcalls you hear in the House of Commons from the opposition party. It's chaotic and rude sure but that's just human nature.
My rule of thumb is to upvote if the comment is insightful or has information I find useful. Downvote if it seems blatantly incorrect, mean, overly negative or is actively trying to make the conversation worse. Otherwise I just ignore it.
I don't think I'd downvote your two examples, they just sound like opinions I'd politely disagree with. To me, outrageously, astonishingly wrong would be something like "the Holocaust didn't happen", "the moon landing was faked" or "Obama wasn't born in Hawaii".
There are plenty of reasons why Instagram may be worth $1 billion that are not outrageously, astonishingly wrong. Not least of which is because that's what Facebook paid for it two years ago. Instagram has grown significantly since then, as has FB's valuation. I'd speculate Instagram could go public today at a low multi-billion valuation.
For example: "I disagree with the President of the United States and feel his policies are harming America."
Response: "You are a racist."
Of course, the reason for disagreeing with the President has nothing to do with race, yet it's an easy way to attack and silence points with which some do not agree.
As one commenter noted, "there are no rules." Really, it comes down to rational, thinking human beings being open to an alternative point of view rather than finding every way possible to attack people on the other end of the table—whether by downvoting or crying "racism."
Think about a democracy. You can't down-vote, you always vote for something. People get "down-voted" (getting trialed and fined) when they act against the rules.
What I humbly recommend is sometimes actually up-voting a controversial comment that you disagree with as long as it is in-line with the conversation. That makes it more visible and it becomes more likely that there'll be a discussion under it it. I usually reply and up-vote when I disagree, just up-vote otherwise.
Simplistic rule, but that's the gist of it, from my perspective.
I would have to imagine that the liberal downvoting for 'useless comments' actually detracts from the value of HN. Good thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8031898
Wait, do people actually do this? (outside of Reddit, anyways)
I also had at least one option that I considered adding to the list but didn't because I didn't want to suggest it as a possibility.
Even if your comments are long transparent, people need to "exert their opinion" and penalize you in aggregate.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8042707
There's a conversation where, in response to someone hailing an app developer for linking to competitors, I observed the benefits that such an action brings. I had responded to a couple of replies, and could tell as each person came through because they didn't just skip that no longer relevant, transparent conversation. No, they had to read it and then gang downvote. Which...what's the point?
In my belief down-voting system is unfair. Especially if you are advised to shut-up when you are down-voted because it makes conversation boring... As HN does not stimulate responsible conversation, but only something like "say and shut-up if we do not like you", there are no reason for me to keep track of conversation and provide more arguments to prove that I am right.
I have also been downvoted myself, and I know that especially for someone with low karma it can be a real blow.
Of course, one should reply with a correction, but in reality, maybe that's not always what happens.
It is becoming pretty annoying, mainly because HN is becoming more like /r/politics (NSA, government, big business are all evil), rather than talking about cool hacker tech.
H) Never.
I) Never; flag as inappropriate with a reason (sexism, rascism, spam - the list should be limited and must not include references to the intelligence of the poster or the post).
I'm with Voltaire.
The quote Peter alludes to is "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Interestingly, it seems it's not a direct quote from Voltaire, rather a comment by S. G. Tallentyre summarizing his attitude:
http://www.voltaire.ox.ac.uk/www_vf/about_voltaire/didnt_say...
"What Tallentyre wrote was: ... Voltaire forgave him all injuries, intentional or unintentional. ‘What a fuss about an omelette!’ he had exclaimed when he heard of the burning (of a book). How abominably unjust to persecute a man for such an airy trifle as that! ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ was his attitude now"
I agree with that attitude as well, I identified what I consider only two possibly valid reasons for downvoting, and I usually don't apply them (racism/sexism, which others say would be more appropriately flagged, and "cool story" useless comments, which I try not to flag either).
Also, I'm an intellectual elitist and a bit of snob - but I always optimistically and naively hope that those with I engage are as well read, as critical, and as ignorant as I.
Rarely works out that way, but occasionally I learn something.