Hacker News Reader

Comment by CamperBob2 | Hacker News Reader

This article was particularly frustrating, because it inspires but never answers an incredibly obvious question: does antioxidant treatment help prevent the effects of sleep deprivation in rats, or only in fruit flies? Surely that would have been the next thing on the researchers' list of things to try.

They may have addressed this, and I just missed it. But in general I agree that this isn't the best format for describing this type of research to nonspecialist readers. I don't mind a slight dose of human-interest fluff, but the facts should come first.

(I take it from the patented HN instant downvote that the article did, in fact, answer my question, and I just missed it.)

View on HN

Looking at the 'Graphical Abstract' in the excellent link [1] that seesawtron posted, I don't think you did miss anything.

[1] https://bit.ly/3cy0C9u

Can someone explain how the downvote system works? I guess every user is not allowed to downvote but some users can? Thanks for your insights in advance.

It’s been a while since I was a new member here, but AFAIR, you need to accumulate a bit of karma so you can downvote. This prevents fresh accounts from downvoting.

I think it's 500 karma, but I'm not sure because I've been here 2 years and still don't have access.

I'm at around 1000 and have it. I suspect it might be a little above 500?

EDIT: dang answers directly (500 or 501): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8381148 (2014)

I try to save downvotes for posts that are actively abusive or hurt the discussion (by being abusive). Not just for stuff I don't like or I find 'low effort' (although I understand why others might have different standards). I also try to be generous with upvotes for everyone who participates with me in good faith.

I have a feeling my comment is being downvoted by people who didn't read the article. In retrospect, I can see where someone might think I'm advocating a quack antioxidant treatment for sleep disorders, or "just asking questions here," or something else besides asking a specific, valid question about the studies.

Oh, well.

Yeah people seem extra jumpy these days especially concerning medical articles. I generally just expect it ahead of time and shrug when it happens.

I tend to lurk and enjoy reading things here. I've been here almost 5 years and have less than 200 karma. That being said, I give out upvotes like candy.

It's greater than 500 karma. I made it to 500, no down arrow. Got up to 502, and the 'down' arrow appeared. Then a comment of mine was downvoted, bringing my karma down to 499, and the button went away again. Got it back a day or two later.

The other thing is that you don't seem to be able to downvote comments which are a direct reply to your own comment (although you can up-vote them). You can downvote replies-of-replies though.

You’re never able to downvote direct responses to your posts. Prevents retaliation for disagreeing.

> Prevents retaliation for disagreeing.

Or it just incentivizes them to click on your profile, click through to comments and down-vote everything not in direct reply.

Arguably that's a higher bar of caring but once that bar is exceeded it's far more damaging to civil discourse because then you've got factually correct technical comments down-voted into oblivion because that person happened to also commit WrongThink(TM) in the comments on an unrelated contentious subject.

You could also argue that it's an incentive to wait a day before taking a minority opinion on a divisive subject but I'm not sure that's something we want to be incentivizing.

I don’t think it incentives the behavior you’re describing. People that get this offended about a post on HN will try so, even if they can downvote the direct response. Not being able to downvote a direct response stops the first impulse, which is sufficient to deter many, if not all people.

> Not being able to downvote a direct response stops the first impulse, which is sufficient to deter many, if not all people.

I think probably the most important thing is that it clearly communicates what the expected behavior is. I don't think it's immediately obvious that downvoting a response to you is would be considered impolite. (After all, people down-vote things because they happen to disagree all the time; what's the difference if it's in response to something you wrote or in response to something someone else wrote?) But if it's clear that's the social norm, I think most people would just go along with it.

Adding an extra few seconds to retaliation probably does have an effect, but only on people who would consider breaking the social norm anyway.

You have to earn 500 (or maybe 501) karma before you can downvote, and you're not allowed to downvote replies to you. The idea is, a person has to become a member of the community before they can just come in and downvote whatever they don't like, and you can't downvote someone for disagreeing with your point.

As far as I know, those are the main hard rules of downvoting.

I too was hanging on throughout the end for that experiment result, but it never came.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com