I'll be honest, I don't necessarily understand what gets flagged sometimes. I wrote a blog post a while back that got flagged when submitted, and sure, maybe there was too much Twitter discourse already when I submitted it, but I didn't think there was anything objectionable enough to have it flagged, instead of just allowed to sink gracefully off the front page of New. I don't have a problem with flagging in theory, but it would be nice to have a little more transparency, though, so I know how to correct in the future.
Downvotes, though, I have less issue with. They can sting, sure, but they're a signal from the community that "we do not want to have this conversation here." And that's fine! Not all communities need to have all conversations, and while moderators moderate, communities really do tend to define themselves. Moderators can say, for example, ducks are an allowed conversation topic, but downvotes from the community indicate that the community really does not want to discuss ducks. "What is permissable" versus "what is encouraged" are different things.
The biggest problem I have with downvotes is how they can be gamed. So long as that's dealt with reasonably, yeah, don't mind 'em so much.
“I didn’t think there was anything objectionable enough to have it flagged”
Even if there was you deserve a reason as to why, or at least some consideration as to your effort.
How would you possibly be expected to correct your mistake if you aren’t told what it is?!
Officer: I am giving you a fine.
Citizen: Oh… for what?
Officer: That’s a secret, bye
You can ask the mods, but the answer is always "Many users flagged it" (usually a more polite version).
I didn't flag it, so I have to guess. I blame tweeter fatigue. <guess> Some days there were too many posts about tweeter and people got annoyed. User that hated tweeter flagged it because they were tired of discussions about tweeter. Users that loved tweeter flagged it because they didn't want to heard that. Nobody was happy with it. </guess> Perhaps there is something I missed skimming the article, but I don't think it was a bad post. Anyway, I was/am/will just ignoring all the tweeter drama.
Sometimes. The upvote rarely favours erudition, but does favour concision and I think thats good.
The downvote tends to punish opposition. Contrary responses, oppositional to a common view. So a hypothetical rational discourse in favour of slavery or cannibalism would be significantly down voted because it's not reflecting contemporary morals.
A well argued case for athiesm or gun control for example. Or an observation under Trump (who btw I loathe) some sectors of the US economy flourished, or that US exceptionalism justifies much of the communist world viewpoint and explains in part whataboutary.
* You only have two days here. It takes some time to get used to the implicit rules.
* You wrote too many oneliners. Avoid oneliners at all cost, unless you really know what you are doing. Just expand them to a two or three paragraph post. It's easy to misinterpret oneliners, sometimes they look rude or lazy. Just expand them untill you understand when you can post oneliners.
* Discovery by young students are always overhyped and overrated. People love them anyway. If you want to post a negative comment, it must be a clear irrefutable fact, not an opinion. Make it super clear, super polite and super irrefutable.
I like the reddit rule for downvotes: you should only downvote if a post doesn't contribute to the discussion.
I frequently upvote posts that I agree with. Mea culpa.
But I rarely downvote a post. I could probably count the downvotes in my life on one hand. Most of the time, posters I disagree with are genuinely attempting to engage in the discussion. The fact that I disagree with them is less important than their constructive attempt to participate in a conversation. EOF.
8 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 13.1 ms ] threadI don't like it either. If I would be Elon musk, I would buy ycombinator and change the logic of comments/voting to:
You're able to up- and down vote, but only you've written an answer comment.
Downvotes, though, I have less issue with. They can sting, sure, but they're a signal from the community that "we do not want to have this conversation here." And that's fine! Not all communities need to have all conversations, and while moderators moderate, communities really do tend to define themselves. Moderators can say, for example, ducks are an allowed conversation topic, but downvotes from the community indicate that the community really does not want to discuss ducks. "What is permissable" versus "what is encouraged" are different things.
The biggest problem I have with downvotes is how they can be gamed. So long as that's dealt with reasonably, yeah, don't mind 'em so much.
Even if there was you deserve a reason as to why, or at least some consideration as to your effort. How would you possibly be expected to correct your mistake if you aren’t told what it is?!
Officer: I am giving you a fine. Citizen: Oh… for what? Officer: That’s a secret, bye
How is that a good system?
I didn't flag it, so I have to guess. I blame tweeter fatigue. <guess> Some days there were too many posts about tweeter and people got annoyed. User that hated tweeter flagged it because they were tired of discussions about tweeter. Users that loved tweeter flagged it because they didn't want to heard that. Nobody was happy with it. </guess> Perhaps there is something I missed skimming the article, but I don't think it was a bad post. Anyway, I was/am/will just ignoring all the tweeter drama.
The downvote tends to punish opposition. Contrary responses, oppositional to a common view. So a hypothetical rational discourse in favour of slavery or cannibalism would be significantly down voted because it's not reflecting contemporary morals.
A well argued case for athiesm or gun control for example. Or an observation under Trump (who btw I loathe) some sectors of the US economy flourished, or that US exceptionalism justifies much of the communist world viewpoint and explains in part whataboutary.
* You only have two days here. It takes some time to get used to the implicit rules.
* You wrote too many oneliners. Avoid oneliners at all cost, unless you really know what you are doing. Just expand them to a two or three paragraph post. It's easy to misinterpret oneliners, sometimes they look rude or lazy. Just expand them untill you understand when you can post oneliners.
* Discovery by young students are always overhyped and overrated. People love them anyway. If you want to post a negative comment, it must be a clear irrefutable fact, not an opinion. Make it super clear, super polite and super irrefutable.
I frequently upvote posts that I agree with. Mea culpa.
But I rarely downvote a post. I could probably count the downvotes in my life on one hand. Most of the time, posters I disagree with are genuinely attempting to engage in the discussion. The fact that I disagree with them is less important than their constructive attempt to participate in a conversation. EOF.