There are many reasons why people downvote comments/posts in any community - be it HN, Reddit, Facebook, etc. I would be thankful if you could explain your reasoning for downvoting the comments when you choose to do so.<p>For example, I'll sometimes see a massively downvoted comment that's constructive and beautifully written, but it carries an opinion that is not currently popular for whatever reason.<p>I believe that downvoting someone just because you disagree with them is terrible for a discussion network like HN. Moreover, I would say that I learned the most from the comments that I disagreed with - on all levels, politically, technologically, personally.<p>I will downvote a comment if it's not constructive, only written to be provocative, etc. It doesn't matter if I agree with the author's opinion or not. If someone puts in the effort to explain their opinion politely and constructively, my thinking is that it's positive for all the people in the community.<p>So, what kind of a downvoter are you? What are some of your reasons for downvoting a comment?
Chaotic Neutral!<p>More seriously, I almost never downvote, when I do, it's mostly if it's outright offensive, either literally or intellectually, that is, not an argument that I disagree with as such, but one that I find offensively uninformed, self-deceptive or is nothing but value-signalling. That can include arguments that align with my own opinion [1].<p>1. Contrived example: I may find a proposed law a bad idea because it limits freedom in socity. If someone else agreed that it was a bad idea, but argued it was because the law would be friendly to "some ethnic minority they dislike". I'd still downvote them for being idiots, (to be fair, it'd probably also make me reconsider my own position).
I can't downvote with this account yet, but with past accounts I downvote if:<p>- the comment contains information that I know is either factually incorrect, or<p>- is making bad assumptions.<p>I have upvoted comments I disagree with in the past because they were well-reasoned, good, thought-provoking comments.
I downvote things which are:<p>- misleading or in bad-faith (straw man arguments, cherry-picking to the point of absurdity)<p>- obviously designed to cause offence or provocation<p>- which don't add to conversation ("this", "yeah", "same", etc)<p>- unconstructively dismissive<p>If it's something I disagree with but it's a good-faith argument and well written, I just move on.<p>I know some downvote jokes/puns, but I don't mind them in moderation. I think one needs to read the room before making joke comments though.
The worst is users with the ability to flag content.<p>I have dead comments turned on and see a lot of well-made thought provoking comments that that are flagged because they are contrary to the popular narrative.<p>On the other hand there are a lot of bad comments that deserve to be flagged so it's a double-edged sword.
I only downvote when a comment checks all of the following boxes for me:<p>* It has little to no content relating to the conversation.<p>* It is also unnecessarily provocative.<p>Basically if it looks like a troll, walks like a troll, and acts like a troll it get's the downvote.
FWIW, Paul Graham has commented that using up/down arrows for agreement/disagreement is fine: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171</a>.<p>At the end of the day I think everyone just upvotes comments they like, and downvotes comments they dislike, people just have different reactions to things that impact what "dislike" means to them.
- adds nothing<p>- just expresses personal preference<p>- bad assumptions<p>- bad argument<p>- factually incorrect<p>- too unclear<p>- inflammatory or dismissive<p>- probably other stuff<p>> I believe that downvoting someone just because you disagree with them is terrible for a discussion network<p>Sure but I think it is a bit naive and futile to expect otherwise. People are going to try to hide and punish the spreading of opinions that they don't want people to have. Consider especially that there are opinions that people consider against their interests for people to hold, thus there is an even stronger incentive for them to suppress them and doing so would be entirely rational.
On HN, I rarely downvote. I only downvote when it's blatant spam, or out of topic, or provocative.<p>But on Reddit, I now tend to downvote things I dislike. I originally acted like on HN, but I noticed that _everyone_ else is downvoting because 'they don't like it', so I got on it too.
I have been here for many years and cannot downvote, so if I disagree with something I have to make a comment disagreeing, which usually results in my comment getting downvoted so I never get any karma. Which is good, because poverty is cleansing.
Glad to answer! My standard on voting is, "Does this improve the discussion?" How do you improve the discussion?<p>- Summaries of key dynamics/context for the discussion.<p>- Substantively criticizing other's points.<p>- References to related materials about the topic in different context and how they're relevant.<p>How do you worsen the discussion? The opposite of that, plus:<p>- Misrepresenting arguments or misapplying a citation.<p>- Replying only to the weakest, easiest version of a point. [1]<p>- Low-effort in-jokes. ("Hey, maybe they could use a Beowulf cluster for this!" "The mitochondria? Like, the powerhouse of the cell?" Any reference to the IT crowd emergency number.)<p>Generally speaking, my voting will correlate with whether I agree with a comment. But, two big exceptions:<p>- If I disagree with the conclusion, but it makes a good case for it that I think merits a response, I'll upvote.<p>- If I agree with the points, it's done in a trollish way that hinders substantive discussion of the key argument, I downvote. There was one interesting case (I'll try to find it) where the commenter made a great point, and even made a great analogy to one kind of taxation ... but the point didn't need the analogy, and said analogy (predictably) triggered a bunch of commenters to defend their sacred taxation cow at all costs even if they would have otherwise agreed with the main point.<p>[1] including nitpicking, unless the comment indicates it's doing so, i.e. just fixing a technical inaccuracy unrelated to the core point
I'm not cynical, but I kind of gave up on people who don't behave on the internet or are blatantly stupid. Sometimes this feels like I gave up on the internet as a whole, but I try to accept that it won't change anything whether I care or not. Things will go their way no matter if I fight it or not. So I try to ignore it. But what I want to do, is, I want to upvote more. I want to encourage people to be open with their thoughts and knowledge and create output that I think benefits more people and puts us on the right direction.<p>Long story short: I try to focus on what has value and encourage that behavior with upvotes and further comments.<p>PS: What's the required karma to downvote? I'm currently not in the position to be able to downvote anyway ^^<p>Edit:
(1) "I'm not cynical, but ..." Well, not a good start... I try not to be, maybe I am. But I don't want to be.
(2) Karma required to downvote is 500 according to another commenter
If I find it disagreeable enough. If someone makes a bad joke. I flag content when it’s trolling or goes into ism categories.<p>I flag stories when the headline doesn’t match the content or the content piece itself is garbage.<p>I’m liberal with downvotes. I’ll go through some threads and only downvote - nothing being worthy of an upvote.<p>I get I’m different than some here who think the downvote is holy and should only be used on the most sinful but I prefer a liberal amount of course correction over even slight sins. No sense in trying to turn a boat that is already flipped.<p>I also use it to manipulate threads where I want a certain comment to be at the top. I’ll downvote one that I’m not particularly fond of and then upvote those I find more relevant - purely with the goal to get a certain narrative going.<p>I think many people here do the same, tbh. This might make me sound like a prolific downvoter but I don’t feel like I am. Many threads get no votes at all from me and I read quite a few…
I imagine you'll get a higher percentage of respondants from the group that downvotes for "good reasons", than you will from the group that downvotes for "bad reasons" as they are probably less willing to publically admit it. So I doubt the responses in this thread will be that representative overall.
I will downvote what I think of as "brick-headedness". By this, I mean someone who will argue until the reply indentation hits the right side of the screen, but absolutely will not admit or accept any validity whatsoever to the other side's criticism.<p>I'd even go so far as to say, if you're not going to listen, don't try to talk (here). HN isn't for you to prove that you're right against all comers. That's a really low-quality conversation.<p>Now, you can have someone who is in fact completely in the right, and it can take quite a few posts to demonstrate why. (Been on the receiving end, most recently in nuclear physics.) But you can kind of tell the difference between "listening to understand" and "listening only to argue back".
When a post lowers the quality of the debate.<p>> <i>I believe that downvoting someone just because you disagree with them is terrible for a discussion network like HN</i><p>Yes: that would be unintellectual. If this is for debate, debate it should be. (Otherwise it would be "polling", not debating.)<p>Some noted that "If one can upvote to express agreement, then one could downvote to express disagreement". This position fails to see the asymmetry in rational discourse: you may not need further arguments to support the weight of an expressed position, but you do, in general, need arguments to instead oppose it.<p>(Otherwise, it's Monty Python's Argument Sketch - "Yes it is", "No it isn't"...)
One rule about voting: Don't shit where you eat. In other words, don't downvote comments / commenters you are also arguing with.<p>I <i>try</i> (but probably fail often) to downvote only on fact or form, not opinion.
I consistently downvote posts talking about voting. I have downvoted what I thought was great posts bcs they ended with a "inb4 incoming downvotes lolz".
The same as described in OP. Btw, it is not my personal trait, I just know how it supposed to be here and how it makes HN HN. Maybe it’s in the rules/faq, visited it pretty long ago.<p>Edit: I think that the common idea of downvoting on HN is that it’s not your own opinion on a post content, but actually a public moderation mechanism allowing you to decide if that comment fits HN, <i>not you</i>, without flagging it to a moderator.
It depends on the community.<p>I don't downvote on Reddit. The way the voting system is implemented makes it functionally worthless and I don't see the point. I also barely upvote; I upvote comments that I really like/agree with/want to encourage if they're low scoring. Like comments sharing on a PTSD subreddit; I'll upvote if those are low to encourage people to speak/let them know the lurkers support them in email.<p>Can't DV on HN with this account, but back in the Dark Ages, I only downvoted here if the comment was either a.) assuming bad faith/attacking a strawman or b.) pulling in what I recognize as a narrative and not leaving space for it to be questioned. (So Twitter level content).<p>For FB I guess the 'downvote' would be the angry button, but I don't think that's a good comparison, given it is also used for being infuriated on behalf of the comment maker instead of AT them.<p>Though that comparison now makes me want to compare downvoting behavior to car horns: Both are limited communication devices meant to display displeasure with the actions of a random stranger you might never encounter again...
I don't downvote really. I mostly browse popular feeds everywhere so downvotting something won't result in any use. Also if you really hate something that is also popular, downvotting that means you are actively fighting a losing battle.<p>I am pretty good at rants so I will go on a rant on the comment section instead. I like to vent to strangers and I think some people love a good rant to read.
Can I answer this differently?<p>I virtually always upvote comments, which I see downvoted for expressing an opinion, which is obviously presented in good faith. That's even then the case when I violently disagree with the opinion in question.<p>What's even worse than people downvoting a well reasoned opinion are downvotes for <i>factual</i> statements.
If I could, I would downvote anything that does not increase the signal-to-noise ratio. In the last 1-2 years, there has been an upward trend in reddit-like comments like "Yes!", "That sucks", and smart-ass/low-quality oneliners that are supposed to be funny.<p>if only those comments could just disappear from HN.
Mostly either offensive or presumptive e.g. "anyone who uses .Net is stupid" or otherwise where the conclusion is much more dogmatic than the logic so it reads like arrogance.<p>I wouldn't downvote someone who said something like "Shouldn't we all make time to ensure our code is always secure" (even though this might not be realistic/true) whereas someone who said something like, "Anyone who doesn't make time to ensure their code is always secure deserves to go out of business" implies that it is always possible to secure all code; that people choose to not secure certain parts; and therefore they deserve to fail. I am more likely to downvote this.<p>I don't mind opinions though so if someone said "I always use PHP and it has always been fine", is no problem even though that's not my experience.
Downvotes on HN are basically random.<p>I've had well-written comments downvoted into oblivion in threads that also included another comment stating <i>the exact same opinion</i> slightly differently. I've had zingy one-liners upvoted to 100 or so. I've had discussions where the back and forth statements alternated between negative and positive karma.<p>I'm treating it as a study in human behavior around communications. So far my takeaways are:<p>- a zingy one-liner that agrees with the zeitgeist will be upvoted to the sky<p>- the same type of comment expressing a contrarian view will be buried<p>- timing matters: if you get a few downvotes early on, the downvote brigade will help ensure a continued slide<p>- downvoting to disagree is natural (meme theory and all that). What's interesting to me is how can one overcome the impulse to downvote and potentially seed a new idea in someone's brain.
An interesting thing about HN downvoting is that it makes the comment disappear (for you) immediately. So downvoting = "I don't want to see/hear this"<p>I sometimes reflexively downvote but when I see the comment collapse, it gives me pause and makes me think about my own motivations - do I really think that comment simply shouldn't appear for me, or do I just disagree with it? Even if I think it's ignorant or badly written, I still have to think twice.<p>In contrast, other platforms let you downvote <i>and</i> reply, which I think lets you try to have it both ways: I want to tell you what I think of your stupid comment, but I also don't want you to be part of the conversation. Maybe that's fundamentally wrong.<p>I agree with the other person who said people can be too think skinned about the whole business though.
I very rarely downvote.<p>I think the downvote option is probably needed but it can be problematic - it carries different meanings with subtle differences:<p>- A way to signal disagreement with a comment.<p>- A means to flag a comment as clearly misleading or incorrect.<p>- A way of signalling a 'low value' comment (obviously subjective).<p>- A way for the downvoter to simply express his or her displeasure at what has been posted regardless how reasonable the comment is. (This probably happens more often than people care to admit it. It's subtly different than just disagreement.)<p>One might argue all the above examples are types of 'disagreement'.<p><i>An idea</i>:<p>Clicking downvote adds the following line to the end of a comment: <i>3 readers disagree</i> or <i>3 readers downvoted</i>. Would this make readers pause before they hit the downvote button? (And is that a good or bad thing?)
When I find myself downvoting I usually flag as well.<p>I do this rarely when someone is commenting in a way that’s going to drag a thread into a muddy, already-well-trodden non-sequitur.<p>New and more interesting ideas deserve as much of a chance as they can get.
If it's factually wrong, or missing the point. Or if it's just attacking the parent.<p>I try not to downvote opinions, even if they are blatantly stupid. On the other hand, disagreeing in a clever way will earn an upvote from me.
HN and Reddit (obviously depends on a subreddit) are drastically different communities than LinkedIn, Twitter or Facebook.<p>I might downvote on HN or Reddit if something is spammy or blatantly doesn't bring any value to the conversation. I do that very rarely though.<p>Frequency wise I much more often go straight to reporting content for removal without getting into discussion with people that have more free time than me. While it still unfortunately takes time, I believe that if damaging (racist, abusive, calling for violence) content is left unattended the general amount of it will only multiply with time.
If a post centers on a logical fallacy, I'll downvote it. I see too much false dichotomy, like "if not x, then it <i>must</i> be y" where u, v, w, etc. are not even considered. What really aggravates me is when I point this out from a completely neutral standpoint and people treat me like I'm supporting one side or the other when I'm merely pointing out there are more than 2 sides!<p>I'll also downvote stuff that is off topic. I'm sure I downvote other things, but I'd say those two are the lion's share.
I like to put down the nice-jolly-point-grabby-no-content ones and the long-treatise-on-why-someone-is-wrong-on-the-internet-wall-of-text-waste-of-space types of comments. I also like to upvote those which are voted down (but not dead) for cynicism. UX people who like to discuss the arrangement of letters in the title instead of the article itself get it the worst. I am pretty much the exact opposite of HN.
I am downvoting comments that are (subjectively) misleading, false or with bad intentions. Never for different opinions, I am actually upvoting any different opinion sustained by solid arguments.<p>This is only for HN, I am not active on social networks, I had enough.
I only downvote when the person's comment comes off as rude. Snark I can take, but rudeness, bombastic obtuseness, and just plain impoliteness will move me to downvote. The argument may have been supportive, but not with that attitude.
I downvote two things:<p>- Comments that seem to be trolls or low effort jokes.<p>- Such outlandish comments that I can't even bring myself to reply to, as I can see no timeline where value can be added in the conversation chain.<p>Otherwise, I make an effort to reply if I disagree.
I downvote root level comments that are unrelated to the content of the article they are responding to. You see a ton of this on posts about WFH or job interviews or whatever everyone can have an opinion on.
I've been a lurker for over 5 years and embarrassingly didn't realize there were downvotes on this site. Guess I still don't have enough "Karma" (?) ...
I rarely downvote good faith comments (even if they are wrong) and instead try to focus more on upvoting good comments. However, I do downvote obvious spam, trolling, etc.
Never downvote. If a comment was just racial slurs or something, others will downvote. Otherwise, never downvote an idea regardless of 'provocativeness' or otherwise. In fact the provocative approach can often be what breaks cognitive dissonance. hunter s thompson or matt taibbi for example do this well. Gonzo journalism is easier to consume than yellow journalism coming from mass media.<p>>For example, I'll sometimes see a massively downvoted comment that's constructive and beautifully written, but it carries an opinion that is not currently popular for whatever reason.<p>Agreed. This is toxic to community and shuts down discussion. In fact I might even suggest that this happening essentially breaks the community. Not sure what to call it, but its not a community anymore.<p>>I believe that downvoting someone just because you disagree with them is terrible for a discussion network like HN. Moreover, I would say that I learned the most from the comments that I disagreed with - on all levels, politically, technologically, personally.<p>This is really bad on HN. Not as bad as Reddit obviously. This has been more recently bad because we are a society inflection point. Reddit/HN are just the battlegrounds. Hell even the universities are battegrounds. Back in the day the universities were all about free speech and having diverse discussions about everything. Today? That sure isnt happening anymore.<p>The exercise here isn't about how to get better discussions. It's about identifying the discussions you're not allowed to have. Climate change for example is completely off limits. Why is it off limits? There's a significant number of people who believe we are on the verge of human extinction. To argue against climate change in any degree is tantamount to encouraging or contributing to our extinction. That's literally terms of war.<p>It's interesting to try to find all the issues you aren't allowed to discuss on HN. You can then also see who is doing it and why. The curious thing is why they are so secretive.<p>When you understand, how does it work out? What's going to be the event that fixes this? It's going to take a major event. World war against china? A greater depression? They are right and we will be extinct in about 10 years? It's unclear what it will be, but there's something bad coming.
I follow the maxim: “The downvote is not a disagree button.” I don’t downvote differences of opinion.<p>I downvote trolls and outlandish and objectively false lies (e.g. Bill Gates put microchips in the vaccines). That’s about it. I’m extremely liberal but I don’t downvote conservatives. They are as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine.