[inviromentalist]

The cycle-

>New users, new ideas.

> Mods ban these new ideas because they don't comply with existing culture

> Mods get heavy with their justice

>Core users are mistaken for newbies, and face mod wrath

> Core users migrate to new websites

Guess where HN is on this timeline

[Steltek]

I feel like this is a broadly applicable human phenomenon akin to Isaac Aasimov's "Psychohistory" in the Foundation series. It also feels easy enough to capture that someone's already done the research on it.

[microcolonel]

HN is kinda dying as a community, though moderation isn't the whole story. There are also some long-standing bugs, and misbehaviours of the voting system.

Being able to downvote replies without any refutation, to me, seems like a massive mistake; it just teaches people not to say anything interesting, because they won't get a response anyway, even when they're wrong in a subtle or interesting way.

The formatting available to users is maybe close to the right amount, but the implementation is broken (for example, it doesn't end URLs when it sees >, so you end up with broken URLs when you go out of your way to protect them). It could probably also do with proper first-class block quotations, people end up putting them in <pre> blocks or italics, and it's not always clear.

[pdonis]

> HN is kinda dying as a community

I've been here almost 10 years now, and I don't think so. I think the overall quality has remained about the same.

> Being able to downvote replies without any refutation, to me, seems like a massive mistake

If downvoting is going to be used just to express disagreement, I agree it's too easy to do. (A number of commenters have posted links to comments by pg where he has said that's what downvoting is for, but I still think it's too broad.)

If downvoting is going to be used only for posts that are seen as adding no value to the discussion or the site, that's a much narrower category, and it doesn't really lend itself to "refutation".

> it just teaches people not to say anything interesting

The way around that is to build up enough karma that you don't care if you get downvoted. Of course, then you have to police yourself by not saying unpopular things just to be difficult, but only if you genuinely think they need to be said and are adding something to the discussion and the site. But people who have built up enough karma are going to have learned to do that anyway.

[microcolonel]

> Of course, then you have to police yourself by not saying unpopular things just to be difficult, but only if you genuinely think they need to be said and are adding something to the discussion and the site.

It seems like you're impugning their motives here.

Do you honestly think that most people whose thoughtful comments are downvoted are engaging in bad faith, “saying unpopular things just to be difficult”?

[pdonis]

> Do you honestly think that most people whose thoughtful comments are downvoted are engaging in bad faith, “saying unpopular things just to be difficult”?

No. Remember that I was talking about a particular subset of users: the ones who have enough karma that they don't care if they get downvoted. In order to get that much karma, such a user will have already made a lot of thoughtful comments that were made in good faith. I was just observing that, once a user has enough karma not to care if they get downvoted, the feedback mechanism that regulated their behavior up to that point--karma--no longer has much impact. When put in that kind of position, it has been known to happen that a person might change their behavior. But I would hope and expect that a change for the worse under those circumstances would be rare.

[microcolonel]

I guess I just disagree that the behaviour required to gain a karma cushion is "good", or "better" than the behaviour that stagnates or moderately shrinks karma.

I personally think that playing in to the echo chamber is a subtler form of abuse; making the people in the community progressively more unhealthy by carefully avoiding anything that looks or feels challenging.

I don't think a healthy community is one which encourages people to fat eachother up on sweet nothings and uncontroversial shower thoughts.

It seems to me that the most popular replies are often the ones which present an obvious, widely-held opinion as though it's controversial outside the group; which enables holders of the majority opinion to think of themselves as underdogs and free thinkers.

I think a lot of harm is done by rewarding people for defending the majority opinion as though it's controversial.

[pdonis]

> I guess I just disagree that the behaviour required to gain a karma cushion is "good", or "better" than the behaviour that stagnates or moderately shrinks karma.

It seems like you think that upvotes are not being used to identify posts that add value, but simply as a signal of agreement with groupthink. Am I reading that right?

Also, do you think that downvotes are similarly misused? (I.e., to slap down controversial but value-add posts?)

My own experience is that the posts of mine that have gotten lots of upvotes have been thoughtful ones, not simple "party line" ones, and the posts of mine that have gotten downvotes have been thoughtful ones as well--just thoughtful ones that the majority disagreed with but didn't have any good refutations of. But my experience might not be typical. It is certainly more plausible on its face that both upvotes and downvotes would be misused, than that downvotes would be misused but upvotes would not.

[kevin_thibedeau]

I made a generic, non-specific comment about people using religion to manipulate and swindle a few weeks ago. As expected it got -4 because it had too many trigger words for the snowflakes. Then it was flagged into oblivion. I don't mind harsh downvote even when unmerited. What shouldn't be allowed is groupthink as an excuse for completely erasing non-incendiary discourse.

[leonroy]

I wouldn’t say HN is going down hill but one thing that I’ve noticed more of is downvoting because people disagree with the comment.

That was never the intention behind downvoting privileges if I remember right. Down voting exists to bury flippant, inappropriate or insulting comments.

We really cramp quality discourse when we automatically hit down just because we disagree.

[brewdad]

I think this is a reflection of the culture at large, online and off, where so many argue in bad faith or refuse to accept basic facts as true.

In online communities where so many are anonymous or psuedo-anonymous, it becomes easier and more mentally healthy to downvote an opposing position than to reply with a well reasoned response only to find out your dealing with a bot or someone who insists the sky is green.

I'm not sure how we fix this, though the signal to noise ratio is higher here than many other sites, so I keep coming back.

[krapp]

>That was never the intention behind downvoting privileges if I remember right. Down voting exists to bury flippant, inappropriate or insulting comments.

PG said it was OK once, because upvoting for agreement is also OK, and now it's permanently baked into the culture, despite the obviously incorrect assumption that merely because the actions are symmetrical, their effects are also symmetrical.

It's also funny that people have been saying HN has been going downhill or "turning into Reddit" since the beginning. It's common enough that it is (or used to be) specifically barred in the guidelines.

I think there's a tendency for many people to consider everyone who came to a culture before them to be authentic, and everyone who came after them to be the ones destroying it. The Eternal September effect is real, but it also panders to nostalgia and a sense of entitlement that says things were better when we and our culture were more relevant.

[astura]

No, pg said that downvoting for disagreement is ok.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314

[pdonis]

Then I disagree with him. :-)

I personally try not to downvote a post I disagree with, if I think it's a valid, reasonable contribution to the discussion.

[kevin_thibedeau]

More people need to upvote posts that they do disagree with when it is a reasonable contribution.

[microcolonel]

I think it's natural that downvoting is used for disagreement, but the barrier to entry should be higher.

The system I've proposed is: you can downvote a post if you've upvoted a reply to it, or if you have replied.

If somebody is breaking the rules in clear bad faith, that's what flagging is for.

[baud147258]

There seems to be something like this in play, there are discussions where I can't downvote, but I've never dig up to check why

[microcolonel]

You can't downvote replies to your own replies, that's the one I'm aware of. Maybe there's another level based on karma that was introduced since I got where I am.

[detaro]

Can't downvote comments older than >24 hours is another thing.

[300bps]

HN is kinda dying as a community

As someone who’s been on HN for about 9 years, it’s funny to read this. I don’t see how it’s gotten any worse during my time here.

I think HN’s community is fantastic but you either get it or you don’t. I really enjoy the signal to noise ratio and I’m happy that silly comments and jokes are downvoted or moderated.

I read HN with showdead on and personally I think the moderation is spot-on.

[microcolonel]

I get HN's community, and I enjoy it. That said, I often think twice about posting anything meaningful; I know I'll get a bit frustrated when I put myself out there in good faith, and people have nothing to say, but downvote anyway.

I know that some very bright and lovely people have been totally turned off of the place by this, and this behaviour of the system doesn't really help anything.

> I read HN with showdead on and personally I think the moderation is spot-on.

I too use showdead, I think the moderation is generally good (though I think at times I've been handled somewhat unfairly). The times when there's a dead post that I don't think should be dead, it's usually from a person who has worn out his welcome with other comments. This is why I say moderation isn't the main problem, contrary to the parent reply.

[laumars]

> That said, I often think twice about posting anything meaningful; I know I'll get a bit frustrated when I put myself out there in good faith, and people have nothing to say, but downvote anyway.

I've notice more and more people say this and it's a sentiment I feel myself too. Personally I don't come on HN half as much as I used to because I just don't fancy putting myself out there when, at times, it can be a flip of the coin whether your gain or lose "points" over it.

I know it's just numbers and it shouldn't bother me; but it does. Judging by the comments others have posted, I'm not unique in that regard either.

In any case, HN will keep rolling on albeit the signal to noise ratio will gradually worsen over time as people get more apathetic about spending their time writing a high value post.

[krapp]

>Personally I don't come on HN half as much as I used to because I just don't fancy putting myself out there when, at times, it can be a flip of the coin whether your gain or lose "points" over it.

I just accept that Hacker News culture can be vitriolic and petty and that anything I say that's even mildly controversial to someone might be downvoted, and I'll probably never know why, beyond the obvious fact that at least one person disagreed for some reason. It's much easier to participate here once you stop caring about it, though.

My account's even been rate-limited now, and rather than letting that serve its intended purpose of driving me away from the site altogether, it just helps me focus on writing better comments which sometimes get downvoted even more than they otherwise might.

Like the movie says, it's Chinatown. This aspect of Hacker News culture is never going to change.

[geggam]

Ditto

[dsfyu404ed]

>The times when there's a dead post that I don't think should be dead, it's usually from a person who has worn out his welcome with other comments. This is why I say moderation isn't the main problem, contrary to the parent reply

It really annoys me when I see this happen cross subject/thread. Someone's opinion about zoning has no impact on the correctness of their opinion about low level disk IO.

[300bps]

With a minimum level of karma, you can vouch for a dead comment which will resurrect it. You click on the time the comment was posted and then click vouch.

[ryandrake]

I think the “drive-by downvoting from people with nothing to say” problem could be solved by requiring down voters to type even a short rationale. Good ol Slashdot did this well 20 years ago with the “reason” drop-down you needed to select from when downvoting.

[kevin_thibedeau]

The reflexive downvoting of earnest opinions is a problem, as evidenced by parent.

[philipkglass]

I'm occasionally surprised by downvotes and wished I knew why they were issued, but overall I would rather permit silent downvotes than have every disagreement spawn another comment.

The tit-for-tat exchange of conflicting earnest opinions has degraded many other discussion systems. My wife used to comment a lot on a newspaper that used Facebook comments. Some articles would have hundreds of comments, with 3/4 of them coming from a small core of people rehashing fundamental differences of opinion.

Without downvoting, many people can't ignore bad comments because "someone is wrong on the internet." Leaving bad posts untouched looks like an implicit signal of community approval. But countering predictable comments with predictable responses makes the whole discussion worse.

My favorite comment chains here are ones where I upvote the original, then the counterpoint, then the refutation to the counterpoint; everyone in the chain is making good, fresh arguments or observations.

My least favorite comment chains are ones where someone opines aggressively, which spawns a sarcastic reply, which leads to a heated response... In those cases I'm happy that I can downvote everyone involved without having to add any more text.

[hliyan]

Almost 7 years here. If anything, I feel like the discourse has improved.

[geggam]

Quite a bit of group think on HN with controversial concepts and ideas squashed.