Ask HN: Are Downvotes Necessary?
Why are downvotes necessary? In a system with upvotes and flagging, downvotes do not seem to provide any additional value, and likely often stifle conversation on the basis of personal bias.
I often experience downvotes when I post an unpopular opinion, and the downvotes generally outnumber the comments on the post.
In other words, it is too easy for downvotes to be handed out based on biases, and without the need to explicitly state why an idea is worth criticizing.
7 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 28.9 ms ] threadSilent downvotes just create animosity.
It's sad how people's egos can feel threatened at the decrement of a 'fake internet point'.
Down votes are good. They help start the conversation of why your comment could be wrong.
I still prefer a symmetric system... Why lose half of the information?
I agree that people should comment better when they interact with a post.
HN downvotes cause comments to become effectively hidden and unreadable, and while some that receive this fate are just throw away “useless” comments, plenty are not.
The idea that a downvote “starts the conversation” is just plain wrong - people are actively told not to ask why they were downvoted. That’s the opposite of starting a conversation.
I disagree with what you said, but I didn’t downvote you, I replied and told you why. If I, and the other people who Top-commented so far all just downvoted your comment your comment would be literally fading from view, and you’d have zero clue about why people did so.
I guess its the question of how much down(vote)shun is ok.
If enough people disagreed with what I said, enough people would have saved time by not having to read a greyed out comment.