←back to thread

The Value of Downvoting, or, How Hacker News Gets It Wrong

(blog.stackoverflow.com)
61 points Anon84 | 1 comments | 09 Mar 09 05:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.331s | source
Show context
pg ◴[09 Mar 09 05:37 UTC] 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. e40 ◴[09 Mar 09 14:45 UTC] No.508447[source]▶
I agree. Reddit started to get really messed up when the "silly pictures" posts were allowed to dominate the front page. Those posts attracted more of the same, and the change in the comments that followed should not have been a shock to anyone--the same people upvoting the picture of the "jesus toast" were the same ones making stupid comments.

However, all of this is missing the main point: for a site to be popular (lots of eye balls) and be able to sell itself to a large media company for a large sum of cash, it needs to appeal to more than a small, coherent community. Reddit changed because their founders wanted to cash out. HN isn't changing because you have no (apparent) goal of cashing out, and are thus willing to keep HN as it is.