Ask HN: Why Do You Downvote?
I have been curious about how other people parse their way through HN. I think new accounts can't even downvote. It is common to see people ask about the downvotes even though the second last rule on the guideline [0] says not to question it.
I try to not downvote to disagree. I downvote misinformation, statements that are egressive towards a person and not the point they are making, responses that say "This.".
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
100 comments
[ 0.15 ms ] story [ 160 ms ] thread> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
>so idiots don't have to think too much
Do you really not understand why you might get down-voted if this is how you address people?
Tone is important. How you address those reading your comment is also important.
(While I have you: would you please stop breaking the site guidelines generally? You've done it a lot and, as you know, we ban accounts that do that. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
Downvotes are for comments which are not worthy of a response because they are not honest attempts at discussion.
That's wishful thinking. In practice that's just what it is. I'd be in favor of some magical gui change that would fix that, but it doesn't exist.
They also did meta-moderation. You could choose to meta-moderate and you'd be shown a post (or posts) with their moderation and could select whether the moderation was appropriate or not. So a post like yours that got marked "off-topic" by someone (it's not, it's a fair and earnest question) would result in the moderator getting some kind of penalty in meta-moderation.
Another thing I liked was that if you participated in the discussion your moderation points disappeared. So if I moderated your comment (up or down) and then replied elsewhere, your comment lost or gained a point.
It only takes a handful of comments to go from meaningful discussions about the article to talking about vim vs. emacs etc.
For example, a few from the ruby post that was on the front page recently:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23990533
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23995632
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23991570
So if I don't spend 20minutes making sure my reply is perfect, I will get downvoted.
Let's see if I get downvoted here too, as I wrote this on the go without checking all my facts.
But you know, making sure your post is factual correct, nicely worded and thought out seems to be a good consequence. Reading that I actually wish I was afraid of downvotes so I put more effort into some of mine.
But if you use HN as a funnel for brand building, talent acquisition, or as an authoritative voice for your company, then they can be costly.
it shouldn’t really influence your behaviour?
You are right that quality of the response is rewarded .
It is lot more about timing if you contribute late to a thread or post it is less likely you will get any points .
I usually find myself doing that frequently , the lack of upvote/ downvote only bothers me when there are no replies, you don’t know whether people read it, not so much whether people agreed with it.
(But let's say officially it was for this tiny grain of snark: "Let's see if I get downvoted here too, as I wrote this on the go without checking all my facts.")
I feel the same way as you - not about strangers on HN, but rather about people whom I will interact with who might see what I write, which is why I don't use this handle anywhere else. But downvotes? Who cares if you get downvoted? It's bad in that your thought is disappearing, but emotionally and intellectually it's useful information: What you said rubbed the HN audience wrong at a high ratio. You can either get upset and fall into the trap of blaming "them" because they have bad politics or are snowflakes or whatever, or you can allow that information to simply make the world clearer for you and use the chance to try to re-read what you wrote from an outside perspective.
I never understood people acting like downvoting is some huge crime or being downvoted is some great slight. It's a little arrow on a web site. It makes a number in a database go up or down by 1. I don't care how many points my comments score, and neither should anyone else. Speak your mind, or don't, and move on with life.
It's not about scoring imaginary internet points, it's about deciding what is and isn't acceptable in our community. For me the bar for "unacceptable content" is a lot higher than just "dislike."
As others have mentioned, if I disagree and think it's worth the time to engage, I'll respond and hopefully we have a fruitful discussion. Like/dislike doesn't really come into it. If I really dislike it I just close the tab or ignore the comment.
I was led to believe that the opposite was true:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171
I'd like to see a wider range of options that have different effects on a post/comment like specific agree/disagree buttons that don't have the effect of making the comment move up/down or be lighter/darker, maybe just shows a count for both agree and disagree, not a single number that moves up for agree and down for disagree like votes do. Flag-like reactions should require some type of write-up, single-click actions are too convenient for users in a rage.
Who’s “we” here and on what basis are you able to speak for that group? It has been stated by pg himself a long time ago that it’s ok to downvote to express dislike or disagreement.
> Although it's unavoidable to some extent, I really don't want HN to develop a strong filter bubble where only things I agree with get shown. I want to see dissenting opinions and ideas.
HN already has a strong filter bubble on various topics. Yes, it may seem better than some other communities, but any place that constantly allows new users to view or participate will have them (the new users) see some sort of filter bubbles established and enforced by the ones who have been around for longer (and have these as blind spots that they cannot recognize).
If you vote according to your own views on a topic, then you're saying that you want everyone to see only views that agree with yours, and you want contrasting views to be hidden from everyone. This must be true because voting affects the presentation of comments on the site; it is not at all just an inert database column.
I would like to see well-expressed opinions regardless of how echoey or reprehensible they might be. I visit HN in the hopes of having my mind changed, and those kinds of comments are the very comments that might change my mind.
That's why I especially try to vote for any comment I reply to (because it was literally thought-provoking); comments that restated another jumbled comment well (they improve site readability); and comments that explain extreme viewpoints in rational if not reasonable terms (they promote further logical or at least empathetic discussion). None of these have anything to do with my personal opinion on the subject.
You're going to downvote my comment because I think voting serves to curate the site to make it a better place to visit, and you think voting is a popularity contest for your own world view. I want your viewpoint to be seen and discussed. You want mine to be hidden.
At the same time, when I receive downvotes, most of the time they are correct - if I post a comment when I'm in a bad mood, my tone gets snarkier and I get downvoted more often. And that is fair. So I tend to just accept them, move on, and try to be more aware of my communication habits in the future.
- Inordinately combative, mocking, sarcastic, or otherwise negatively emotional comments.
- Low value comments likely to provoke or distract.
- Comments complaining about downvotes (e.g. "I'll be downvoted for saying this, but...", or, "Why am I being downvoted? Is it because [I'm right | they're irrational | they have the wrong politics | etc]". There's even an example in this thread! This is essentially self-victimization, underdogging, etc. For the same reason, when I am downvoted, I never comment on it - I just accept that that's how people feel about what I said and try to learn from it rather than be bitter about it.
The reason I dislike this, is that besides obviously racist or otherwise inappropriate comments, there are regularly normal seeming comments that are dead. Now, there may be reasons for this I am just not privy to, but I feel it hinders discussion when some opinions that don't seem problematic are just silenced like this.
[Edit]: And rereading my own comment, I think I want to clarify that I am not talking about free speech issues or political discussions here, but I regularly encounter factual seeming or explanatory comments in technical discussions that are dead and it just baffles me.
Usually when I see a perfectly good, but dead, comment I check out the user's history. I usually see one of two situations here:
1. It's clear that they have a pattern of making nasty, off-topic, often vulgar comments. I'll still vouch for their good comments, but at least I can understand why they were dead to begin with.
2. If their history is of mostly normal comments except one bad joke at the start of their posting history that got them hell banned, then I'll vouch for them and let them know what's happened.
I knew there was an option to vouch for comments but just assumed I did not have enough Karma to do so. But another comment in this discussion mentioned the "hidden" flag button, which you only see if you click the comments timestamp.
And sure enough, the vouch button is just there. So the problem may just be that you have to know where to find it. Which I now do. And hopefully everyone who didn't and reads this now as well.
I do appreciate that you can undo most of these actions now. There was a time when downvoting (and upvoting) were instantaneous and permanent. It was very frustrating when scrolling on my phone and accidentally downvoting someone because I used the wrong kind of press in the wrong place.
Moderation is guesswork, and even if we guess 99% accurately about which accounts to ban in the early stage—a necessary thing to do, because otherwise the site would be overrun with spammers and trolls—that still leaves quite a few false positives who later turn out to be neither spammers nor trolls.
Hacker News is a lot less hospitable in reality than it seems to an outsider. If you just register a lurker account and enable showdead and look around it's a veritable zombietown in here.
That's not true.
New accounts are subject to extra software restrictions because of past abuses by trolls and spammers, though. I don't see any way around this.
I'll guess again! My VPN just happened to be IP banned which I had no way of knowing before registering.
I'm sure new people appreciate being labeled as abusive trolls and spammers just for registering and I’m sure new people don't stay either.
If you or anyone has suggestions for how to better write software to distinguish between genuinely new accounts and serial abusers, I'm sure we'd be very interested.
I also believe many people would feel very bad if you downvote them so you should better have a serious reason. The fact you disagree or don't like them (let alone don't consider what they wrote interesting/useful for you) is not enough.
1. Outright abusive language, personal attack on someone, sarcasm or obvious self promotion.
2. Irrelevant to the actual discussion even if it is otherwise well written. Some examples: humor/joke without any other valuable discussion, talking about a totally different topic.
I never downvote even if I disagree with someone as long as they are not in one of the 2 categories above.I also don't downvote if someone makes an honest mistake or is wrong about something.
I still think it would be an interesting experiment to remove voting from comments altogether. I actually dont see much value in voting comments in general, since the provide such a wealth signal, especially as highly political articles find acceptance on HN.
I've been downvoted a number of times for posting well-written, thought-out responses which other people disagreed with. I've often been downvoted below zero within a minute of posting, just for playing Devil's Advocate. I think these downvoters react negatively to things they disagree with, and the downvote button for them is much simpler than actually dissecting and responding to an argument.
Do we want to live in a society where even the most technically minded forum, where objective truth should stand triumphant, falls to reactionary downvoters and fake news?
>for posting well-written, thought-out responses which other people disagreed with
I could write a well-written, thought-out argument in favor of segregating blacks. I'm not suspicious of you - I'm just saying, maybe you're making too much assumption about how valuable your writing is, since you've only used "well written" and "thought out" as evidence.
>just for playing Devil's Advocate
Do you announce that that's what you're doing? Do you think there is such thing as a comment that deserves downvotes, but that wouldn't if it was written the same word for word with the exception of being announced as a thought exercise? (Not rhetorical - I suspect my personal answer is yes).
>within a minute
A minute is a long time.
> They are coddled and react negatively to things they disagree with
This is a broad and specific accusation to level at people just because they downvoted you. It's also a very convenient way to convince oneself that one is "the better person".
Just image if I were given two feedback levers instead:
- This comment adds to the discussion/This comment does not add significantly to the discussion
- Agree/Disagree
I don't upvote things I agree with, I upvote unique contributions to discussion that arent the platitudes spread everywhere else, even ones I disagree with.
It's fine as comments ago, until:
> Downvote brigade has arrived, I love receiving downvotes for playing devil's advocate; respond to me if you're disagreeing, don't downvote and bury what you dislike.
Looking further, the next example is similar, ending with:
> Here on HN, we have our own orthodoxy, too. Those who work with Rust find safe haven for their views, and the downvote brigade on HN will descend if you even mention the word Trump.
Which seems to have been inspired by the next after that, which is an iffy comment in any case, but once again:
> Edit: Apparently someone downvoted this comment within 60 seconds...this seems contrary to HN's ethos. I asked a general question with a specific example; is someone triggered by the words "Donald Trump"? This is pushing a legitimate question about FB's effect on the world down into the gray...is that a good thing?
And so on:
> Edit: Someone want to comment and explain why this is downvoted to -2?
I liberally downvote low-effort, mean, and, if I'm not going to take the time to respond, objectively wrong posts.
More than any of those, though, I downvote people who complain about being downvoted. You lost some Internet points. Who cares?
Word of advice, WhompingWindows: Stop. You're always going to see votes in both directions, but being net negative is usually transient. In your case the downvotes are sticking most likely because you're calling attention to them.
Let's reset: I think the downvote should be used for low-effort, non-contributive comments like "lol" and "^this". Do you disagree on that point?
Next, I'll admit to self-puffery, no doubt my ideas are not as clever as I imagined when I typed them. However, I don't believe in downvoting merely based on philosophical disagreement. If I'm seen to "downvote brigade" against that practice, so be it, but I believe and will publicly state that downvotes shouldn't bury something that goes against HN/tech/societal orthodoxy. This is how hive-minds and pile-ons form; diversity of thought and opinion is healthy, and challenging one's own assumptions is illuminating. Do we want a community where a differing voice is grayed out and bottomed out within minutes?
Why do I care and fight for broader discourse? IMO, Social media can tend to reduce complex issues to mere scores based on camp-size, and I am fighting to re-complexify our dialogue. Let's upvote towards solid discussion and relish complexity and diversity of thought.
I just want to point out that playing Devil's Advocate is not as innocent as you make it seem. Most people, when they say they're doing it are posting poorly supported populist arguments, based on some unsubstantiated folk wisdom or straight up fake facts. Not saying you did that in that particular case.
Playing Devil's Advocate is only valid when you're dealing with normative scenarios, for example when advocating for one policy over another, both of which have drawbacks and advantages.
When someone says they're playing Devil's Advocate for issues where the science has been mostly settled, it's usually what I stated above in the first paragraph, and becomes very clear that the poster has some ulterior motive or is personally attached to their beliefs over evidence.
So the reason those get downvoted is that when you have a wrong populist argument at the top of the thread, more people see it and adopt it as their position, thus perpetuating the cycle. To break the cycle, people downvote it.
Quick downvotes typically do more good than harm. In my experience both voting and receiving votes, a undeservedly grey comment gets more upvotes than a comment that hasn't been downvoted.
To the OP's question, since the aggregate effect of downvoting is suppressing the visibility of a comment, I think of a downvote as my personal "delete" button.
Thank you for making this point - you stated it perfectly. Regardless of what you think downvotes "should be used for", the fact is that they are used to "downvote", whatever that means, and that alone is valuable.
So the only things I generally downvote are literal spam (this makes up the vast, vast majority of content I downvote, however small that number is) and deliberate misinformation.
I never get discussion on the issues I bring up. At best I get hand-waving.
Even though I admit the questions are hard and the problems are going to be difficult. But it is concerning that we aren't even thinking about the issues that come with "near-automation".
As for myself, I would like to think I only downvote people who seem to be unnecessarily combative. But, being a human, I'm willing to accept that my judgment may not be 100%. Or that I may have perceived the comment wrong. That would be my ideal, however.
For instance, I downvoted a comment yesterday that said something along the lines of “you can get a cs degree and spend your life optimizing a companies ad revenue, or you can go into physics and work on problems like this” referring to an alternative gravity model passing some early tests for feasibility.
Obviously not all cs degree holders work on ad revenue, some work on important, impactful things. And I personally know physics majors who work on designing plumbing systems for a small company renovating houses in my area. It’s a bad argument, and it detracts from the quality of the conversation.
I think I've also used this power to down vote completely incorrect information a few times.
But I usually read when not signed in and then I can't vote at all. And honestly, I think it was a pg comment that talking about voting and karma is boring. Either the post is valuable or it's not.
Sometimes it's difficult to decide whether I should upvote or downvote a comment. Opinions are often nuanced, and there are many cases where I may disagree with some points but agree with others, or recognize that even though I disagree with the commenter, that person has put forward a strong or well-articulated argument.