←back to thread

Hacker News Guidelines

(news.ycombinator.com)
446 points tonmoy | 7 comments | 24 Aug 23 16:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.473s | source | bottom
Show context
yjftsjthsd-h ◴[24 Aug 23 17:09 UTC] No.37251581[source]▶
The one thing I wish was added - either in the guidelines or as a change to the actual web UI - was replying to a comment that you're downvoting; it's frustrating both to have one's own comments downvoted without explanation, and to come across a comment that's grey without obvious reason (Was it factually incorrect? Endorsing an unpopular idea? It's not always obvious).

(I'm not saying HN should do exactly the same thing, but one example is Slashdot's system where a comment can get downvoted in a way that tags it specifically as trolling/offtopic/whatever - https://slashdot.org/faq/mod-metamod.shtml seems to describe it alright)

replies(9): >>37251672 #>>37251684 #>>37251692 #>>37252205 #>>37252423 #>>37252679 #>>37254129 #>>37254592 #>>37254827 #
jedberg ◴[24 Aug 23 17:14 UTC] No.37251672[source]▶
It's an interesting idea, but you'd end up with a situation where the worse the comment, the more discussion it generates due to the forced replies, which is sort of the opposite of what you want.
replies(3): >>37251715 #>>37251821 #>>37254836 #
1. yjftsjthsd-h ◴[24 Aug 23 17:17 UTC] No.37251715[source]▶
Perhaps a system where a comment can only be downvoted if it has at least one reply? So someone has to explain, but only once
replies(3): >>37252082 #>>37252314 #>>37253251 #
2. jedberg ◴[24 Aug 23 17:39 UTC] No.37252082[source]▶
A perhaps viable idea. You should email it in and see what they say.
3. hutzlibu ◴[24 Aug 23 17:54 UTC] No.37252314[source]▶
I think some sites have a feature, that when you downvote, you have to add some words/tags to why you downvote. I like that idea, it gives the commenter some concrete feedback, but also the downvoter a moment for reflection (is this really a bad comment, or do I just have a bite reflex because its language sounds like a (ideological) side I hate?)

I know that I have stupidly taken some downvotes personally, but later realized, those comments were maybe not bad by itself, but in that context attracting flamewar OT debates. With some extra words, I would have realized sooner.

And downvoting for merely not liking someones opinion is something I really don't like, but is explicitely allowed here.

replies(1): >>37253708 #
4. pvg ◴[24 Aug 23 19:11 UTC] No.37253251[source]▶
It has the exact same problem as the original idea - its motivation and purpose is really reducing the personal sting of getting downvoted, not 'producing an interesting set of comments ordered by some approximation of interestingness'. Notice how nobody ever suggests or advocates for 'receipts for upvotes'.

It's a totally sane motivation it just doesn't obviously make a messageboard better.

replies(1): >>37253476 #
5. jedberg ◴[24 Aug 23 19:29 UTC] No.37253476[source]▶
It depends on the commenter. Some truly want to learn and get better, and in those cases it will make the board better.
replies(1): >>37253644 #
6. pvg ◴[24 Aug 23 19:43 UTC] No.37253644{3}[source]▶
These things aren't mutually exclusive and the commenters who want to get better (and/or develop more resilience to mild online criticism) do so just fine without the noise cost. There are lots of other ways one could try to dampen the unpleasantness that don't involve the extraordinary burden of receipts for downvotes.

I guess that's probably the best way to summarize this argument - the extraordinary burden demands extraordinary benefit and not even the people who are really into this idea often argue the benefit would be commensurate with the burden.

7. creer ◴[24 Aug 23 19:48 UTC] No.37253708[source]▶
That sounds like a useful way