Suggest HN: Force downvoters to punch in why

[digitalarborist]

If you're going to bestow the gray text of shame, you should have to provide an explanation why such that noobs, such as myself, can better understand HN zeitgeist. If it's due to ideology, such as: Functional programming is literally the second coming of Jesus Christ. Elon Musk is a hero, why are you not already in line to offer him sexual favors? It doesn't follow the HN terms or was simply puerile or poorly written.

I'm glad downvoting was removed for new users because it is usually just used to indicate that you disagree with a point of view, though the HN elites seem just as fallible if not more fallible in this regard.

[brudgers]

At some point, I started treating downvotes as feedback on my writing. So I would take another look at what I wrote. Maybe I did not make my point clearly. Maybe what I said was wrong. Maybe it just wasn't worth saying. Maybe I was an asshat. Then I would edit it or delete it or leave it alone...and I've consciously left asshat comments alone because sometimes my intent was to be an asshat.

All of that still applies, though I am more likely to delete something I wrote these days and hopefully less likely to be an asshat because I try to avoid being one.

Anyway, sometimes I downvote in disagreement. It is often a better alternative to writing the nonconstructive thing I'd otherwise be inclined to write because what I'm inclined to write is the sort of comment I don't want to read on Hacker News. It's not the sort of comment I usually want to write either.

That sort of comment I don't want to read includes the sort of comment that provides a lot of entertainment elsewhere on the internet...we've all seen it: clever insulting outrage [feigned and real] written to win.

Anyway:

1. the guidelines suggest not commenting about being downvoted.

2. Questions about the site can be directed to the moderators via the contact link.

3. Good luck.

[UnoriginalGuy]

I agree, that a lot of downvotes are caused by tone, writing style, or clarity. However there's also a lot of downvotes caused simply by being against the consensus. And while I feel like sometimes people are against the group-think just for the sake of it (or to ruffle feathers) there are also times when a healthy dose of alternative viewpoints can dampen the group-think getting too extreme.

For example, just yesterday there was a thread talking about the US turning root DNS over to the UN. This thread turned into a jingoistic nightmare talking about how awesome America is, how they're the only true bastion of freedom, and how the rest of the world is a savage freedom hating backwater. That thread desperately needed more counter-balance, but no doubt people like myself were concerned that the groupthink became so focused that counter-balance would have been met with swift and numerous down downvotes (and risk site privileges because of being downvoted too heavily).

This isn't a complaint about downvotes, this is pointing out that downvotes change posting behaviour both for good (i.e. stopping people being jerks) and for bad (i.e. stopping opinion counter to the "group think").

[brudgers]

To me, the referenced discussion is the sort of context where if I'm outraged enough to write a rebuttal to someone's political views, I'm probably better off just downvoting...and so is the thread and so is HN.

There's no escalation. There's no feeding trolling behavior. There's no toehold on my future: I won't be curious about replies. It's cathartic. One click and I'm done expressing disagreement.

[Lordarminius]

I up-voted this topic because it resonates with me.

Being relatively new to HN I was rather taken aback by the misuse of the down-vote privilege by some people who capriciously wield it. I was even afraid to mention it in case I got down-voted again, since my one experience with the down-vote was when I requested for reasons why another contributors post had been down-voted!

People who wield this power are long-term users who should aspire to a higher standard. I welcome this push for accountability .

[brudgers]

Comments about downvotes are discouraged by the Hacker News guidelines. They are often downvoted by people who feel such comments add little to the discussion at hand. To me, it's rare for a comment about downvoting to add anything to a discussion.

Which is not to imply that I dislike being downvoted any less than anyone else.

[Mz]

This would basically be all kinds of drama. You also could not trust the feedback. Some people will down vote for terrible reasons, like a personal grudge. They would not be honest about that.

Also, some down votes are a miss-click. It is now possible to unvote, but that is recent and not everyone will notice if they fat fingered something.

I suggest you give more of your attention to the positive interactions. It is possible to make that choice.

[ocdtrekkie]

I think I've commented before on wanting to see this as well. Anonymous downvotes are pretty much just meaningless negativity. I'd much rather have the ability to see why I was downvoted, and tell other people why I downvoted them. (I think this would make sense to only be visible to the downvoter and the downvotee, to keep the visible public discussion constructive.)

[digitalarborist]

Tech folks always say communicating with huge corporations is similar to communicating with a psychopath, but communicating online in general has this feeling. You're not talking to anyone it's like talking to a brick wall that will give you a pat or a prod after you give it a couple hours. I think I might just not be up for online mob communication like this and will just go back to lurking. I do have the desire to contribute, but it doesn't really feel worth it a lot of the time.

[type0]

Completely agree, some threads feel like people are talking in the same voice. The feeling is that you are not reading the conversation but some sort of badly ordered essay. Absence of avatars is also the one to blame for this but it also has a good effect that you don't judge written comments by the picture next to it.

[type0]

The problem is that you get counter down-votes for those explanations and that quickly turns into flame wars. As is it now everyone free to comment on why they downvote someone. I can see it being useful to not allow making too many downvotes for one person for one day. This way knowing that your downvotes are limited you could spend them wisely.

[ocdtrekkie]

That's why I would keep those downvote explanations private to the people being downvoted. And don't have them part of the vote/downvote system.

[type0]

I can think of one way doing it. Maybe if its implemented anonymously with several different reasons of multi-choice boxes. Somewhat the way you report youtube-video abuse. Then attach those votes on why the comment got downvoted to be visible when it's clicked on item id, with appropriate chart presented.

[rer]

I often thought of starting a news site exactly on this premise: having to explain why.

Who wants it?

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

They're just imaginary internet points.

[digitalarborist]

There was a time when Youtube view and subscriber count was similar. Now there is a cadre of Youtube professionals whos careers live and die by these numbers.

Also, neither I nor anyone else cares about the points, I don't expect to spend them at the karma store. What I do care about, as I'm sure you do as well, is whether something I said is incorrect and why.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

I care about being correct, I don't care if the hacker news commentariat agrees with what I say.

[digitalarborist]

I'm sorry, but I have to ask, if you don't care what we all think, why do you bother talking to us at all?

[babyrainbow]

Not the OP. But I think even if you disagree, I can provoke thought or encourage you to look at things from a different angle...

[Lordarminius]

> They're just imaginary internet points.

Congratulations. You managed to earn a (deserved)down-vote in a post that crusades against them. :)

But more to the point. HN is an awesome community of very well informed and accomplished people who provide their viewpoints and broaden (my) understanding of many issues. Discussions generate feedback sometimes reflected in the up/down votes we accumulate. So while they may be imaginary, votes serve a very real and useful purpose.