Poll: I disagree with you, is it ok to downvote you?

> C) When I upvote one thread and downvote the others my input seems twice as valuable

Wait, do people actually do this? (outside of Reddit, anyways)

I am sure I missed some perfectly reasonable answers, so please let me know. I have only ever used the downvote button a few times, mostly for reason A, but there is also at least one out there that I would take back if that were an option.

I have also been downvoted myself, and I know that especially for someone with low karma it can be a real blow.

I like the reason "This doesn't add to the conversation."

"Someone said something that actively works against improving the direction of the conversation."

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.

Unrelated - One thing I've always wondered. How does one create a poll?

I'm only okay with someone posted a useless (thanks, cool story bro...) option if it's actually encouraging a better community. I suspect this sort of reasoning is why communities often tank - assholes. Assholes who are tempted by the idea of casting judgement. In that sense, it's a disservice because it encourages an emotional behaviour over a rational one.

How about "It's really small and right next to the upvote button and there's no way to take it back if you fat-finger it"?

Does B include people who are factually incorrect and easily proven wrong with a simple intuitive Google search?

Eg they misrepresented a fact, not presented a dissenting opinion.

To me it does, and I downvote that.

There are no rules. However, downvoting based on disagreement lowers the quality of the conversation. Please don't do it.

I don't use the down vote button (across the Internet). OTOH, I always ensure that I up vote good quality comments which add new perspective or insights to a discussion (even if they do not match with mine).

I draw a distinction between a person saying something I disagree with, ("I think variable foo should be 35%, not 34%") and a person being outrageously, astonishingly wrong. ("Solar roadways are a good idea." "Instagram is worth one billion dollars.")

E) posts with claims that are that are provably false

I downvote comments that I think do not add anything relevant to that particular discussion.

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.

Downvoting someone because you disagree with them is the online equlivalent of saying somebody is stupid because their views differ from yours.

A big problem with this poll is that the lines between option A and B have become largely blurred in today's society.

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."

I'm sort of amazed that "B" has only 12 points at this moment. I am downvoted all the time based on B. Otherwise, I'd love someone to go through my comments and find how many that fall under A or G (as I'd very much want to learn to never fall under either of these categories). Unless you think, "zzzeek posted facts that are incorrect (sure), misunderstood the person he was responding to (arguable IMHO but i often make this impression), told person-I-like they are wrong (lots), used a little too heavy on the sarcasm (I think I've improved a lot in this regard but I continue to work on this) therefore the comment is MEAN! -> downvote".

Whatever the results here, I want to use this opportunity to strongly object to all of the meta-scoring-discussion that I see more and more of ...

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 was under the impression that I can downvote whatever I want to for whatever reason I see fit. Reading the HN guidelines, there are no rules dictating what criteria should be met for me to be allowed to downvote (or upvote) a post. What it does say is:

> 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.

A community feels hostile when everyone down-votes the unpopular opinions and I think we should at least refrain from down-voting when we just don't agree.

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.

I think I can speak from experience as someone who frequently gets downvoted (and upvoted). I think a lot of people do downvote for something that they disagree with, although I would imagine most would say they did it due to the post being useless. Also using humour here is a likely downvote.

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

Upvote with careful consideration. Downvote only out of necessity.

Simplistic rule, but that's the gist of it, from my perspective.

I think "someone posted a useless (thanks, cool story bro...) comment" is applied too liberally. Downvoting can definitely discourage participation. For that reason it should be targeted towards stuff in (A). Except in the most egregious instances of (E), when people downvote they come across as being immature or petty.

A) cultures are different and such subjective argument is not enough to use down-vote. If you are some smart ass who want something without emotions, go and chat with your PC, but if you are reading public opinions, do not be surprised that they are written by humans (probably containing some emotions). F) when someone makes something good and publishes it to be accessible by society it is normal to receive thanks, especially if it is open source project or non-commercial project aimed to make the world better. But suddenly some smart asses appears from nowhere with zero contribution, but with privilege to make other achievements invisible.

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.