Downvoting should come with a mandatory one-line explanation

[heyplanet]

I think it would be very valuable, if downvoting would only be possible if one at the same time writes a short explanation why they downvote.

The reason for an upvote is pretty obvious. The upvoted author usually explained his point.

But what is the meaning for a downvote? This info could be very valuable.

For example, today I posted this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11361031

What do I learn from the downvotes it got? That my post was too unfriendly? That the facts are wrong? That people disagree in some other way?

I would really like to know.

[danso]

I would guess you were downvoted for being sanctimonious. Not just harsh in your enumeration of the ways they screwed up, but throwing this in at the end, "But please stand up and fight for the right thing. For a better world. Not just for a bit of profit by bending the rules", as if you didn't feel like it was enough to pile on to them, you had to make the judgment that they were just a bunch of bottom-feeding assholes. So I can see why you were down voted.

[heyplanet]

Super interesting! Thanks! I can see it this way. But I would not have guessed it.

[1123581321]

My experience is that you usually know why you were downvoted if you think about it, and if you have a pattern of being downvoted, at least one of your comments is likely to have someone reply to it explaining what's likely the reason.

[coreyp_1]

I'm still wondering at what point I will get to see the downvote button.....

[heyplanet]

My guess is that you don't even have an upvote button.

You have that little triangle, but I don't think it really upvotes.

For example, this post has 5 points but is not on the ASK page. While older posts with just 3 points are. Probably because it is "upvoted" mainly by "little guys".

As I understand it, clicking the triangle only means "put this in my saved stories list" unless you somehow secretly become a real upvoter.

I think we all are still waiting for a community with transparent rules. So far, none has managed to get a lot of traction.

[danso]

I think it probably got flagged, as many meta-discussions do. I upvoted it, FWIW.

[DrScump]

<this post has 5 points but is not on the ASK page>

Wouldn't it have needed "Ask HN:" preceding the title for that? I don't think upvotes (or lack thereof) determine presence on the ask page.

[greenyoda]

You need some number of karma points (500?) to be able to downvote.

[dozzie]

You'll see it at 501 karma points.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

I get downvoted all the time, and sometimes I even deserve it, but I'm not about to start complaining about imaginary internet points.

[anexprogrammer]

I suspect it was your tone. You did lay it on a bit thick even though factually correct. :)

[nikolay]

I constantly get downvoted. It's not very beneficial to your karma to have unpopular opinions here... Instead of up/down votes a la Reddit, which comes with the Reddit mentality, too, implement Facebook or Emoji reactions. Be positive! Best for your actual karma is to ignore and not to punish (i.e. downvote). Popular posts get more upvotes, so, they essentially push up the good stuff anyway.

I think downvote should only be a reply, but, of course, you can guess who downvoted you... which is fine as hackers should not be cowards!

[minsight]

The info could be very valuable. Or it could be not valuable at all. It could be inflammatory. It could be dead wrong.

Remember, you are not your down votes. Or your up votes. Share the things you'd like to share. Hopefully, someone will appreciate it (whether they vote or not). Say the things you'd like to say. Be nice to people.

[heyplanet]

If the explanation is inflammatory, I have a much better feedback then from just a downvote. For example, an insult would tell me "Ok, it's probably not about the facts for this guy. Otherwise he would have stated the facts he objects to".

[plugnburn]

I honestly think the entire idea of downvoting available only for selected users creates a mass conciousness manipulation tool. When some "authority" decides what's good and what's bad.

Why can't I use the downvote button? It either must be available to everyone, or not available at all.

And if you, HN founders, are afraid that newcomers can be smarter than you, then remove the ability to downvote altogether. Whoever dislikes a post, can just ignore it.

P.S. The entire user rating system here contradicts the resource name. Hackers do not believe in karma.

[pavornyoh]

I honestly think the entire idea of downvoting available only for selected users creates a mass conciousness manipulation tool.

Downvoting is available to anyone who has 500 karma points or more and is not for the selected few. That ability has to be earned so to speak..

[coreyp_1]

Do you realize that you just said, in essence, that you have to be popular in order to dissent? That's like saying only celebrities should be allowed to voice their opinion.

[pavornyoh]

in essence, that you have to be popular in order to dissent?

No, I am not saying that. And if I understand the dissent correctly being used in the sentence thus, hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed, you are already doing that to my post as an example and you didn't have to be popular to express such an opinion.:)

[coreyp_1]

Incorrect.

Voting is a form of expression, and a comment has much less weight than a downvote in terms of ranking.

The only way to be able to express that type of opinion is by complying with the masses long enough to hoard enough karma. So, yes, only the "popular" people get that power.

[DrScump]

< you have to be popular in order to dissent?>

Reaching a karma threshold does not signify popularity, but it can indicate that the user has somewhat of a track record of likely being able to engage in civil, informed commentary.

[maxerickson]

You can post a dissenting comment with 0 points. You just can't contribute a silent, negative assessment of a comment until you have 500 points.

I'm not sure it takes popularity to make comments that average upvotes either (I would attribute my thousands of fake points more to persistence than to popularity...).

[coreyp_1]

I find it comical that the number is 500. It used to be much lower (Google searches show that).

HN keeps raising the bar in order to limit the # of people who can downvote. I would be genuinely interested to know what % of users that actually is.

The only way to get a large number of upvotes is to be lucky enough to post something at just the right time, or to make a comment on a controversial topic that most of the HN audience will agree with. Be careful, though, that you make the right political statement, though, because otherwise you will get downvoted and lose karma.

The story for most of us, though, is that we're just a second-class citizen here at HN.

[plugnburn]

So again, is this Hacker News or Karma-Jerkin-Conformist News?

It seems that in order to "earn" that "ability" one has to praise Lisp, Rust and Haskell and publicly hate JS. Isn't that mass conciousness manipulation?

The selected few or a crowd thinking the same thought - what's the actual difference? The only difference is that in the second case all fresh and independent ideas get downvoted much faster.

Any karma-based resource suffers from this plague.

Ochlocracy at its worst.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

There's no actual challenge in getting upvotes, the two easiest ways are: * make smart well-thought-out well-backed-up posts * submit interesting links

[anexprogrammer]

In the main the karma and downvoting works pretty well here. It's one of the few places it does.

If something has had enough downvotes to go invisible it's nearly always because offensive, smartass, or spam.

The problem with downvote for everyone, including sock puppet accounts, is it becomes Reddit: "I disagree, have a downvote"

[plugnburn]

> If something has had enough downvotes to go invisible it's nearly always because offensive, smartass, or spam.

Why does someone has more right than me to decide what's offensive, smartass or spam? Either leave that to the administration, or give that to everyone.

> The problem with downvote for everyone, including sock puppet accounts, is it becomes Reddit: "I disagree, have a downvote"

YMMV but I'm experiencing absolutely the same here.

Btw, when I agree, I upvote. Why can't I downvote when I disagree?

[coreyp_1]

> Why does someone has more right than me to decide what's offensive, smartass or spam? Either leave that to the administration, or give that to everyone.

Exactly my point. "Karma Privilege"