HN should have a downvote justification section
If HN provides a downvote button to only certain users, they should justify their downvote. Otherwise it’s just brigading.
You don’t like what I say, how will I know why? You downvote because others are downvoting or you are too lazy to come up with a counter argument.
So I propose, if you downvote, then HN should open up a text box asking you to justify. So people will know if it make’s sense. If others downvote that, they should justify that too. So downvote and justify all the way.
Make it so tedious, nobody downvotes.
15 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 21.9 ms ] threadShouting “brigading” doesn’t do much to change that.
It also ignores the impact of upvotes, which can be used to the same effect, yet doesn’t receive the same request.
Even someone downvoting a post is expressing their opinion. Current Issue is, person downvoting is anonymous, provides no reason and can’t be held liable for their own action. This is ironic, if they also put themselves out there.
Inadvertently, down voters have a larger say in shaping a discussion even though their level of participation is minimal instead of someone who takes the effort to provide a well structured opinion.
This balance of power is skewed.
If downvoting means to disagree, one should know why.
If one wants to provide why, there are replies for that.
It’s a qualitative instrument, making it quantitative will change the use. Meanwhile, abuse always finds a way.
Downvotes are a useful tool. If you can only ever upvote something, that is when the site-value is vulnerable to brigading - HN is probably not interested in lowering the signal-to-noise if farming accounts to upvote (and only upvote) is an option.
Also, a lot of downvoting on the internet is just "I disagree with you", or "I don't like what you're saying". It can be personal, and not necessarily useful to the original poster.
In other words, I disagree with you. Though I won't downvote (flag, I guess on posts) you. This time :)
[aside: I'm not some apologist for HN. I'd love to post my own pet-project [1] but I've linked to it too often in posts where I though it was relevant, and now HN won't accept any post with that URL. Caught by my own ignorance and actions, but it's still their right to run their site as they see fit]
1: (I'm assuming that HN-links are ok :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50151036#50151160
They will reduce or be discarded. If a system recognises that you don’t add value, then either such users will be forced to put in effort or simply be discouraged to pollute any post.
Platforms like Reddit suffer because you can coordinate with many users to push an agenda, since their is no accountability from users who only upvote or downvote. That’s why bot farm and coordinated campaigns thrive.
Unless someone is policing the downvote reasons and holding them to some academically or some other rigorous standard, "I think you're wrong" is ... just fine as a reason.
I don’t agree with this.
——
I could have ended there but If I don’t expand on “I don’t agree with this” and simply end it with a full stop, does it tell you anything? Neither it tells someone else anything. For such cases, you don’t engage.
There are a wide variety of people in this world, and they don't all operate along your own norms, or mine, or <insert random cohort>. People can do as they please. Seems to work out mostly fine.
I did get a laugh to see the irony in the end :)
So you have excluded the people who are casually reading the site and wish to filter out poor-quality comment. But the people who you wished to exclude won't be slowed one iota.
(I wouldn't usually say this but... I will greatly enjoy the irony if this comment gets voted down.)