I have been curious about how other people parse their way through HN. I think new accounts can't even downvote. It is common to see people ask about the downvotes even though the second last rule on the guideline [0] says not to question it.<p>I try to not downvote to disagree. I downvote misinformation, statements that are egressive towards a person and not the point they are making, responses that say "This.".<p>[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
>I think new accounts can't even downvote<p>You need 501 karma for downvoting, that exact number is undocumented on the FAQ page.<p><a href="https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented/blob/master/README.md#downvoting-comments" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented/blob/m...</a><p>For anyone else that curious about undocumented stuff, here are some previous discussions with that github link.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16437973" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16437973</a> (Feb 2018)<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19212822" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19212822</a> (Feb 2019)<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20292361" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20292361</a> (June 2019)<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439437" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23439437</a> (June 2020)
I downvote egregious misinformation, but not honest mistakes. A correction in a comment is more appropriate in those cases. Disagreement and differing opinions do not get downvotes from me - they are part of what makes the discussions interesting. But comments that are actively rude or try to take people down a peg do get my downvote. So do people who clearly are just pushing a personal agenda unrelated to the current discussion. I sometimes try to picture the comments as a real conversation... if you would have said the same thing in a group sitting together real life, would that have been a comment that fit into the conversation? Or would it make the group give you a 'WTF?' look and slowly back away?<p>At the same time, when I receive downvotes, most of the time they are correct - if I post a comment when I'm in a bad mood, my tone gets snarkier and I get downvoted more often. And that is fair. So I tend to just accept them, move on, and try to be more aware of my communication habits in the future.
The one thing I don't like is when comments become "dead", which I understand happens after too many downvotes.<p>The reason I dislike this, is that besides obviously racist or otherwise inappropriate comments, there are regularly normal seeming comments that are dead. Now, there may be reasons for this I am just not privy to, but I feel it hinders discussion when some opinions that don't seem problematic are just silenced like this.<p>[Edit]: And rereading my own comment, I think I want to clarify that I am not talking about free speech issues or political discussions here, but I regularly encounter factual seeming or explanatory comments in technical discussions that are dead and it just baffles me.
I view downvotes as an incomplete feature. If you disagree with some content -- because it is misinformation, or useless, or maybe you just disagree with the argument -- you should be able to explain what's wrong with it. I would much rather have a system where a downvote required a reason, so instead of a downvote it would be more like a comment which can also -1 / 0 / +1 the karma of the parent.
A lot of times I decide not to contribute because I am afraid of being downvoted into the abysss, usually all it takes, is one reply to interpret my own comment wrongly or assuming things I don't specificy. Then the HN readers will read my comment and the disagreeing reply. At this point, I get downvoted (or upvoted) based on the interpretation of my comment by the reply.<p>So if I don't spend 20minutes making sure my reply is perfect, I will get downvoted.<p>Let's see if I get downvoted here too, as I wrote this on the go without checking all my facts.
I downvote primarily bad faith arguments. If I disagree, think you’re wrong, etc I tend to respond (or upvote quality responses).<p>For instance, I downvoted a comment yesterday that said something along the lines of “you can get a cs degree and spend your life optimizing a companies ad revenue, or you can go into physics and work on problems like this” referring to an alternative gravity model passing some early tests for feasibility.<p>Obviously not all cs degree holders work on ad revenue, some work on important, impactful things. And I personally know physics majors who work on designing plumbing systems for a small company renovating houses in my area. It’s a bad argument, and it detracts from the quality of the conversation.
I downvote comments that I think are bad. Comments that are useless, unhelpful, non-constructive, etc.<p>For example, a few from the ruby post that was on the front page recently:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23990533" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23990533</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23995632" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23995632</a><p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23991570" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23991570</a>
I concur with all the points you already mentioned and will add "stray too far off-topic into bikeshedding".<p>It only takes a handful of comments to go from meaningful discussions about the article to talking about vim vs. emacs etc.
I consciously try not to downvote even if I strongly disagree with somebody or have negative emotions about their expression. I downvote if I think a comment is low-value. Examples include:<p>- Inordinately combative, mocking, sarcastic, or otherwise negatively emotional comments.<p>- Low value comments likely to provoke or distract.<p>- Comments complaining about downvotes (e.g. "I'll be downvoted for saying this, but...", or, "Why am I being downvoted? Is it because [I'm right | they're irrational | they have the wrong politics | etc]". There's even an example in this thread! This is essentially self-victimization, underdogging, etc. For the same reason, when I am downvoted, I never comment on it - I just accept that that's how people feel about what I said and try to learn from it rather than be bitter about it.
I notice I get downvoted every time I bring up an uncomfortable situation with anything that touches on the ethical side of automation.<p>I never get discussion on the issues I bring up. At best I get hand-waving.<p>Even though I admit the questions are hard and the problems are going to be difficult. But it is concerning that we aren't even thinking about the issues that come with "near-automation".<p>As for myself, I would like to think I only downvote people who seem to be unnecessarily combative. But, being a human, I'm willing to accept that my judgment may not be 100%. Or that I may have perceived the comment wrong. That would be my ideal, however.
I never downvote anything anywhere ever. I don't understand how can downvoting make any constructive sense. You are meant to flag whatever is spam, offense or blatant misinformation anyway.<p>I also believe many people would feel very bad if you downvote them so you should better have a serious reason. The fact you disagree or don't like them (let alone don't consider what they wrote interesting/useful for you) is not enough.
I am pretty frustrated with downvotes, it seems a lot of users downvote for very different reasons that I do and so here are some reasons I downvote:<p>- blatant misinformation,<p>- posts that I feel are way off HN standards (for example just throwing expletives, writing "fr1st", generally wasting vertical space with no content),<p>- focusing on HN voting mechanics and generally complaining about downvotes (no, I don't want to hear why you think your post is being downvoted, if you can't take downvotes as what it is -- voice of multitude of people that may be right or wrong, stop posting)<p>- extremist claims with no proofs -- the truth is almost always somewhere between extremes. Claiming the truth is an extreme of universe of possibilities should be taken with huge caution and usually just means the person is blind and deaf. In my personal experience, people who really do know the topic will usually start their answers with "that depends" or "it is complicated", and there is very good reason for it. The world is complicated and here on HN we try to understand it a little bit better with all its gory details and not create groupthink closing asymptotically to extreme views.
After being a member here for years I recently got the ability to down vote after making a well timed post. I've only used this power a little bit, and I think only on way off topic comments or jokes. I hope over the years I've up voted a lot more, and mostly on things I found insightful, even when I disagree, because that's the community I want to be a part of. Voting to agree or disagree is not really the best way to foster effective exchange of ideas. I hope that is what HN is still for. I've learned a lot here over the years thanks to the insightful and differing viewpoints one can find here.<p>I think I've also used this power to down vote completely incorrect information a few times.<p>But I usually read when not signed in and then I can't vote at all. And honestly, I think it was a pg comment that talking about voting and karma is boring. Either the post is valuable or it's not.
Why do <i>I</i> downvote? I downvote to do my part in making invisible the comments that I don’t want floating around here. Any voting system is meant for voters to help decide what’s important and what’s not. That’s the case with HN too.<p>It’s all fine and dandy to say that downvotes shouldn’t be used for disagreements (which, on the other hand, pg himself has said is fine to do), but no voting based system can prevent that. Voting by the masses by itself is a flawed system that depends on the attitude, mindset and knowledge of the voter.<p>There are many users on HN who downvote to express disagreement or dislike for certain comments. I too downvote some comments that I disagree with to prevent them from surfacing up because I do not value those comments. If upvoting is meant to help “useful content” (as perceived by the reader) surface to the top, then downvoting is meant for the opposite purpose. Whenever I see a downvoted comment whose content I believe I agree with or that others may have aggressively downvoted to express disagreement, I upvote them.<p>Nobody, in my recollection, has ever said that upvotes shouldn’t be used to express agreement. So using upvotes to express agreement while saying that downvotes shouldn’t be used for disagreement makes no sense. We don’t live in utopia. Not every comment is worthy enough to stay visible in a black font with text replies to express disagreement and go on with lengthy arguments. We are not objective beings who don’t care about that number on the top right that has no tangible value.<p>Looking only at the downvoted or flagged comments in this thread will show what the broader community wants or prefers.<p>Edit: After having said all this and admitting that I do downvote comments that I disagree with, I also believe that downvoting for this purpose is probably not a good idea for one’s mental health and emotional quotient. Most of the time, I browse HN comments without logging in (so no voting at all), and that’s a way to <i>just observe</i> and experience HN.
I don't have hard analytical data here but on highly partisan tech issues (Microsoft, Open Source and Licensing, Language strengths and weaknesses, etc) I've noticed there is often a significant swing in the direction of the voting over time with the first voters (who are presumably quickly refreshing the HN new page and responding immediately to everything) being the most hyper-tech-partisan, anti-Microsoft, pro-GPL, anti-TypeScript downvoters (but not commenters) pounding well-intentioned comments quickly into the gray, followed later in the day by the more mainstream HN voters and commenters who appear to be much less dogmatically anti-Microsoft, etc., and who commonly flip those initially grayed out comments back into positive territory and frequently well up into the comment rankings.
The great thing about the downvote feature is that is perfectly individually subjective, and thereby its affect on comments is an emergent property reflecting the subjective sentiment of the community. Perhaps more importantly, by only enabling downvotes after some period of time, new users are acclimated to the culture here (say, versus reddit), and thereby dampen culture swings.<p>To the OP's question, since the aggregate effect of downvoting is suppressing the visibility of a comment, I think of a downvote as my personal "delete" button.
> I try to not downvote to disagree. I downvote misinformation, statements that are egressive towards a person and not the point they are making, responses that say "This.".<p>I think vast majority of downvotes that I see on HN are more or less like that. Absolute trolls and disrespectful ones are on top of the list.<p>Usually the ones that people complain the most about are off-topic comments that get downvoted. I see them specially happening when the post itself is also kind of off-topic. Those posts tend to be open ended discussions. And if you are late to the discussion it's possible that the discussion is already headed to a more specific sub-topic. Some new comments are then considered off-topic by some users.<p>Upvote is more powerful. I personally try to use upvote to keep what I believe is relevant on the top. And that's what I see most of the users do as well. But, I also don't mind if my comment get downvoted. There is nothing negative about downvotes. It's just other users telling me that this is off-topic right now.
Generally, I try to avoid downvoting when there's been an honest attempt to add to/start a discussion, or when I merely disagree with someone.<p>So the only things I generally downvote are literal spam (this makes up the vast, vast majority of content I downvote, however small that number is) and deliberate misinformation.
I downvote for personal attacks, comments that are clearly off topic or add unnecessary snark or derisive language to the topic at hand, or very clear disinformation. That maybe leads to me downvoting maybe 1 out of... hundreds of comments I read on here a week.
I don't see many people admitting that they downvote opinions they disagree with, but I will. It's a simple way for me to assert "I disagree," even if the act will have no visible impact (unless many others do the same). It also lets me track which comments I've downvoted (via the "undown" tag) vs. those that I have upvoted.<p>Sometimes it's difficult to decide whether I should upvote or downvote a comment. Opinions are often nuanced, and there are many cases where I may disagree with some points but agree with others, or recognize that even though I disagree with the commenter, that person has put forward a strong or well-articulated argument.
I downvote anything I don't like and I upvote what I do like. Most of the time I'm upvoting someone who already made basically the same comment I was going to make. No point in saying the same thing again in another comment, just upvote. If someone says the opposite of what I was going to say, I downvote.<p>I never understood people acting like downvoting is some huge crime or being downvoted is some great slight. It's a little arrow on a web site. It makes a number in a database go up or down by 1. I don't care how many points my comments score, and neither should anyone else. Speak your mind, or don't, and move on with life.
Most often for obvious bad-faith arguments, such as clinging to misinformation or logical fallacies despite having them pointed out as such. Sometimes for extreme rudeness toward another commenter (not a public figure). Never for mere disagreement. Also never for "not adding enough to the conversation" because I think the hostility toward short comments and "small talk" here drives every conversation toward pompous verbosity. There's nothing wrong with a "lighter" conversational style.
I downvote for the following reasons:<p>1. Outright abusive language, personal attack on someone, sarcasm or obvious self promotion.<p>2. Irrelevant to the actual discussion even if it is otherwise well written. Some examples: humor/joke without any other valuable discussion, talking about a totally different topic.<p>I never downvote even if I disagree with someone as long as they are not in one of the 2 categories above.I also don't downvote if someone makes an honest mistake or is wrong about something.
pg says you can downvote if you disagree.<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314</a><p>This was brought to my attention by the mods (dang) and they agree with it and enforce it yet they haven't documented it anywhere such as the guidelines. strange
I downvote sarcastic, jokey, snarky, or flippant comments. There are no shortage of sites where peanut gallery comments are the norm, and I think we should continue to discourage them here as much as possible.
Not sure if I can say any general reason why I downvote sometimes. Perhaps mostly when people complain about being down-voted ...<p>I've come to the conclusion that one needs to have a healthy distance to ones points, and realize that it's just a gamification of discourse that is helpful up to a certain point, but that it quickly gets counterproductive when that's mostly all that people care about.<p>I sense that many people are extremely strategic about what they submit or comment on, where they comment etc, and therefore get sensitive about the downvotes as well. Unfortunately it is a seemingly unavoidable consequence of introducing scores in any context.<p>Better just accept that people downvote you for whatever reason, don't worry too much about your karma (what on earth for?). Care about the content instead.
I can't downvote (yet!) but if I could it would be rare and would be for one of these two reasons:<p>1) Extremely rude, disrespectful, or hateful.<p>2) Pushes conspiracy theories as truthful. Like anti-vaxxers.<p>One of the reasons I value HN is to read opinions that are the opposite of mine. Sometimes they bring up points that I've never considered, other times they make me think more about my own positions. At the very least I might better understand the reasons for other opinions.<p>I would rather read a news story on HN with the opinions than just read it on a "regular" news site, even something reputable like NYTimes. I feel I learn more about the topic.
Personally, I never downvote based on whether I agree with someone. I only downvote for low-effort comments that do not contribute, things like "lol" or 5-10 word comments with no evidence/explanation. Even if someone needs citations, I'm not going to downvote them, I'll ask for further evidence/citations, which in itself often gets downvoted.<p>I've been downvoted a number of times for posting well-written, thought-out responses which other people disagreed with. I've often been downvoted below zero within a minute of posting, just for playing Devil's Advocate. I think these downvoters react negatively to things they disagree with, and the downvote button for them is much simpler than actually dissecting and responding to an argument.<p>Do we want to live in a society where even the most technically minded forum, where objective truth should stand triumphant, falls to reactionary downvoters and fake news?
Generally stuff that violates the commenting guidelines (which unfortunately can found in abundance each day now).<p>I still think it would be an interesting experiment to remove voting from comments altogether. I actually dont see much value in voting comments in general, since the provide such a wealth signal, especially as highly political articles find acceptance on HN.