I think our culture has evolved this as a defence against shills. If positive low-content comments ("I just had a great experience with x") were an accepted and normal thing to post, pretty soon we'd fill up with astroturfers. If you're posting in support of something, you have to go into depth about what made it good.
I think this is good; HN is optimized for signal/noise even at the cost of missing out on some content. It would be better to have a culture that frowned on shallow criticisms (“Why don’t you have X, Y, or Z?” and “Why would you waste your time on that? 12 things like that already exist!”, as the article puts it).
Above all HN (to me) is the antitwitter; it's a place for serious, in-depth discussion. I wonder whether a minimum of 161 characters would lead to better posts.
Your 161-character minimum is an interesting idea. It reminds me of Randall Munroe's IRC moderator bot that only allows novel lines that have never been typed before to show up in the room. He also has an interesting discussion of different techniques to improve conversational SNR:
In-depth useful comments are key. The best analogy is Amazon product reviews- the high-star rating serves as an initial screener, but the real test comes with the reviews. Positive but empty reviews are ignored, the useful ones talk about specifics of the product. Finally a quick glance at the negative reviews to see if they are about something substantial, or are just about a bad shipping experience or something.
People tend to feel more strongly about things they dislike than things they like. When things work, they tend to drift past without being noticed. Think about the things that provoke reliable positive comment - they often are in scenarios where a negative experience is expected.
Consider Apple. Why do people love the brand and products so much and are so willing to discuss it? Perhaps because their expectation of those fields is so low and Apple surpasses it. Compare a normal retail stores with an Apple store. Compare a pre-iPhone with an iPhone. Compare a Mac with a PC. Apple have consciously taken negative customer experiences and made them positive. And as such they get extensive positive comment.
That's a really interesting point. So maybe we're likely to comment on something positive that far exceeds the normal experience, but not say anything where "good" is already expected. I'd never thought of it like that.
In my job, my boss expects everything to be fantstic, for him 'good' simply won't do and he tells me so every day, but occasionally you have to push something which is merely 'good'.
It can be a downer, but when I do 'fantastic' I know I've deserved the praise which is a massive moral boost.
Well, this article is doing what: telling us what he doesn't like. He doesn't like too much criticism.
Personally, I like honesty. As in honest opinions.
But... the source matters. To be criticised by a fool means nothing. To be criticised by someone who has good taste is different. It may be hurt but it's extremely valuable.
Without criticism, you simply cannot improve. I guess there are some people who do not want to improve. They just want things to stay as they are.
That was not the point at all. Criticism is totally fine and often valid, and it certainly aids in improvement. The point I was trying to make is that people are quick to criticize, but slow to compliment. We share our honest opinions when they're negative but not nearly as often when we have something positive to say.
I'm always open to criticism and am willing to improve. Sorry if that wasn't clear enough in the post.
I shouldn't have said you can't improve without criticism. What I meant to say is you can't improve without _feedback_. That feedback might be positive and/or negative.
People are quick to criticise and slow to compliment on HN. But ask yourself why.
Is it really so surprising?
Here are some of my observations. These could be wrong.
1. Computers have always been difficult and at times frustrating to use. I recall a story of someone throwing a PDP-10 out of a window at Berkeley, immediately after successfully porting some code to it (a wonderful achievement but incredibly frustrating- this was before C and portability). If you are spending your time working with computers, you are going to build up some frustration. It just goes with the territory. That will eventually have to be vented. (Exhibit A: Slashdot.org)
2. The web as a medium of business is full of scammers and criminals. It's also full of garbage "news" and other faux "content" trying to draw traffic, internet VC looking to take advantage of young programmers and naive investors, and "companies" formed of morally-challenged people who aim to make money by selling people's personal information or access to people's own content as a "business". There is a lot to make people jaded if you follow business on the web.
3. Computers do have a positive aspect. When they work well, it's amazing. Like magic. Computers are addictive. People enjoy them. When you write programs it can you give you a feeling of great satisfaction. ... However... the way we use computers, e.g., our personal preferences, often differ widely. So If you start singing the praises of something computer-related to other users reading the web, they may not all agree. In fact, the idea of the "fanboy", e.g. one who loves some absolutely terrible and stupid piece of software or hardware, can be even more disturbing than people who are constantly making negative comments about things which might actually not be all that bad.
4. HN if the estimates are accurate is _primarily_ an audience of 18-24 males who are are likely to be social outcasts. Would you really expect them to be overflowing with positive energy? In my experience, negative comments get upvoted. The most upvotes I ever received have been from negative comments. Who would upvote negativity? (I should really not even post negative things. I know better) So who the heck would upvote negativity? 18-24 males who can't get laid. Just a guess.
This is pure speculation, but I wonder if only providing an upvote button discourages positive comments, leaving only negative ones left to actually be posted. The purpose of the upvote is intended to mean "I support this contribution to the discussion", but is too often simply used as an "agreed" vote. There have been plenty of other related comment thread discussions along these lines as well.
Maybe in part, but I think for the majority of people thinking positively about a situation results in a nodding of the head and moving on. Most don't find it interesting or adding to the conversation to just write, "I agree because of what you said or because of X, Y, and Z."
If you disagree, however, there is an emotional tendency to want to argue or lash out(especially under the guise of partial or full anonymity). Arguing makes for a more interesting read or prevents the 'yes' mentality.
I think this is good; HN is optimized for signal/noise even at the cost of missing out on some content. It would be better to have a culture that frowned on shallow criticisms (“Why don’t you have X, Y, or Z?” and “Why would you waste your time on that? 12 things like that already exist!”, as the article puts it).
Above all HN (to me) is the antitwitter; it's a place for serious, in-depth discussion. I wonder whether a minimum of 161 characters would lead to better posts.