Hacker News Reader

Comment by lionhearted | Hacker News Reader

Indeed, though the worst trend I see is emotional comments getting voted up more. Maybe I'm seeing the past more warmly than it was, but it seems like clear, logical, consistent, coherent comments got voted up and emotional based comments stayed around 1 or got voted down. It seems like a lot of emotional reactions are getting voted up even when they're not coherent, consistent, and logical - which seems a bad trend.

View on HN

The worst trend I see is comments getting downvoted based on opinions expressed within, not on how poorly they are expressed. No matter how thoughtful a comment, if it goes against the groupthink, you can expect it to hurt your karma.

I like /.'s tagging of comments. It's good feedback on why something was up or down modded.

It also forces a downvoter to justify why something is getting downvoted.

Yes. I think a simple tweak of having two ways to vote could be an interesting new dynamic: agree/disagree and valuable/not valuable. That way you can express that you disagree with a comment but still upvote them for furthering the discussion. And you can hit the "not valuable" button for insults, trolls, fluff comments, etc.

Now if they only allowed us to downvote stories, instead of relying upon tags such as "slashvertisement", "dupe", and whatever we tag those ridiculously-overhyped headlines...

Here is an example from 925 days ago of pg saying it is okay to downvote for disagreement.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171

He is still thinking about tweaking the forum settings here to ensure good discussion. On my part, I'm a good bit more disappointed when a user asks a polite follow-up question (for example, "What would be a source I could check to confirm that fact?") and that kind of comment gets downvoted. Why do people disagree with trying to find out more information to enlighten the discussion?

Because interested parties can google it and in the reasonably likely case that the question goes unanswered, it's just noise.

Google is not always going to turn up the reference a parent post refers to though.

The 'citation needed' ones are another matter.

Far too often comments asking for a cite are voted up and comments that don't provide cites are voted down, even when the cite is trivially findable via Google. Take this thread for instance:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1552233

Regardless of whether I deserved to be downvoted, there is zero reason for the person asking for a cite to get upvoted considering the the relevant article is literally the first Google result for "old spice" "hormone disruptor".

I think it's bullshit that people regularly get downmodded for posting comments quoting basic facts that everyone should know, or at least know how to verify, without citing a source. If you don't know how to, say, look up the GDP of a foreign country yourself then you really have no business being on this site to begin with.

I can't speak for other readers of HN, but I often ask those questions after seeing that Google points to unreliable sources without scientific editing. I'd expect someone who RELIES on a fact being true knowing how to check that fact with more than just Google.

As a rule, when I see you do that though you qualify your request to that extent.

Most of the 'citation needed' comments say just that and no more.

In the end though, the example linked is a pretty good one in that the base claim ('old spice causes infertility') is indeed somewhat supported but not to the extent that you're in acute danger: http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/browse.php?brand_id=705

I couldn't care less because I can't use aftershave anyway but I can see how that might be a problem if you used it every day (or even twice a day for the 5 O'clock shadow).

I think down voting comment for opinion is great once the comment reaches a few points. That's a discussion.

Down voting a comment to zero or negative based only disagreement feels the enforcement of opinion.

And I've noticed that a more often lately...

> No matter how thoughtful a comment, if it goes against the groupthink, you can expect it to hurt your karma.

So what? If you think that karma means something significant, you're doing it wrong.

As to whether "thoughful" comments get significant downvotes, I don't see it. Instead, I see a bunch of earnest twaddle.

Symptomatic of that is the belief that "thoughtful" is a worthwhile characteristic. It isn't.

> The worst trend I see is comments getting downvoted based on opinions expressed within, not on how poorly they are expressed.

Artfully expressed nonsense is still nonsense.

In other news, HN isn't intended to make you feel good about yourself, no matter how special your mother says you are.

>So what? If you think that karma means something significant, you're doing it wrong.

I find it interesting that expressing this opinion is one of the surest ways I know to gain a negative score for your comment.

I try to upvote/downvote based on how well a comment adds to the discussion, rather than whether or not I agree with it. Comments I am the most likely to downvote: jokes (they'd have to be really good for me to upvote); emotional responses without a shred of factual support; insults; and comments that are overwhelmingly demonstrably false and/or contain provably bad advice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com