←back to thread

61 points Anon84 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
pg ◴[] No.507970[source]
The reason HN doesn't need downvotes is that HN, unlike Reddit, kills lame articles. On Reddit, users need downvotes as a way of saying an article is lame. Downvoting is the only way you can get a (nonspam) submission off the frontpage. But on HN you can flag it and if it's bad the editors will kill it.

We can thus safely assume a nonlame set of articles, and we also (so far at least) assume nonlame voters. And if you only have nonlame voters voting on nonlame articles, upvotes should be enough to pick the winners.

replies(5): >>507981 #>>507988 #>>508023 #>>508297 #>>508447 #
1. whughes ◴[] No.507988[source]
The comment implementation, however, does not appear to be substantially different from Reddit's aside from greater editor control. That means that lame downvoting is possible. If people start to downvote those they disagree with then we begin to see enforced groupthink.

(Funny sidenote: In forums with alleged [real or fake] groupthink tendencies, like Reddit, it appears that referring to and criticizing the groupthink is very often voted up by the community. This is why I believe that groupthink emerges naturally as a result of the availability of the downvote. No one notices what's going on and attempts to correct their own behavior.)

Killing articles and comments solves the problem of lame articles and comments. However, it does not solve the problem of lame voting hiding useful comments. I suspect that this problem will require a solution soon; I myself have noticed an increasing trend toward Redditism here.

Additionally, I believe that the comment system is probably even more important than the article system. In some sites sites, including Hacker News, I get more from the comments than I do from the articles. Thus, ensuring that comments are good and fairly balanced is just as important to me as ensuring that stories are good.