How does one get feedback on comments with low mod scores without bringing up downmoding?<p>Downmoding is by its nature ambiguous:<p>Is the comment unclear?<p>Is the comment in bad taste?<p>Is the comment factually wrong?<p>Is the comment really troll bait?<p>Is the comment insensitive?<p>Many comments, especially when they are short, may be misinterpreted. This is hard to decipher when there are no replies to a comment.<p>Talking about downmods is boring. Helping posters to clarify their comments may turn out to be interesting.<p>One way to do this is to allow people to associate a label with a comment. When a poster sees these labels, it will give that person the ability to post a clarification.<p>The assigner of a label would be anonymous. People could then vote on these labels so that they only stick if enough people don't disagree.<p>People shouldn't have to put on their karma helmet to get feedback.<p>What do you think?
It's really not that important why your comment got up or downvoted. So don't get all worked up about it. Just smile, and go write a new comment on something else.
I find myself constantly glancing at my karma score. I have to remind myself that it does not really matter.<p>I find my better comments begin with a short initial response, and then after a line break, I go into detail about my thought process if need be.
> What do you think?<p>I think that some are too concerned with these things and/or think that they're "owed" something that they're not. (Many in the latter group know why their comment was downvoted and an interesting fraction of them are just looking for an opportunity to argue that the downvote was undeserved.)<p>Downvotes mean that someone didn't like your comment. Be grateful for that - in the real world, people silently put the asshole label next to your name. Sometimes it's you and sometimes it's them. Only one of those is under your control.
I like it, but I'd want to think a lot more about the way it feels, how it works, and other, perhaps unintended, consequences.<p>I've mused about this recently: <a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=662052" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=662052</a>
This scheme would also force those moderating to think enough about their reasons to choose a tag. I am annoyed when I am down-modded for an unpopular argument that adds to the discussion that was seemingly selected for its editorial content rather than its lack of utility. Would someone down-mod me if they had to either (1) choose a false tag or (2) choose a correct tag like "Comment does not adhere to my political views on the matter"? Should up-mods be tagged as well?
I like the idea.<p>It sounds similar to the labels used by Wikipedia which point out problems with articles (e.g. "This article needs additional citations for verification").
This is the Slashdot way: each mod has a label (interesting, insightful, funny, overrated, underrated, troll etc.). A total score can be for example 5 Insightful, made up of 3 Insightful and 2 Interesting.<p>Slashdot's system is fairly complex, and pretty successful. But on HN the accent is on fewer members and overall quality, and less on a complex system. And it's working pretty well so far.
why worry? I mean seriously chances are your comment will be upvoted. And if for some stupid reason it gets downvoted, you are only out 8 karma points at most.<p>Hardly something that'll ruin you or your overall karma score...and its not like Karma even does anything, it affects nothing, so even if you get downvoted, you shouldn't really care.
<i>What do you think?</i><p>I think your idea has already been implemented by Slashdot and if you like seeing labels like "+5, Insightful" you could go participate there, instead.
I disagree with further complexity. Generally if people have a good counter to your argument, and if you seem to be someone worth arguing with, they'll pipe up with a dissenting view. And if you're really confused, a short reply saying "I'm genuinely curious as to why I'm being downmodded - anyone care to explain their decision?" will rarely attract spillover downmods. Unless the comment was <i>really</i> egregious ..<p>If we're brainstorming how to improve HN's commenting system, here's an idea: a limit to upvotes. I propose 32. Beyond that, upvotes only raise position on the page. Thoughts?