Force someone to justify a downvote and you'll get some useful feedback. You'll also likely get a 'because your mom' bunch, unless you annotate the downvote with the username downvoting, and that's a big leap and would discourage downvotes.
Downvotes are a useful tool. If you can only ever upvote something, that is when the site-value is vulnerable to brigading - HN is probably not interested in lowering the signal-to-noise if farming accounts to upvote (and only upvote) is an option.
Also, a lot of downvoting on the internet is just "I disagree with you", or "I don't like what you're saying". It can be personal, and not necessarily useful to the original poster.
In other words, I disagree with you. Though I won't downvote (flag, I guess on posts) you. This time :)
[aside: I'm not some apologist for HN. I'd love to post my own pet-project [1] but I've linked to it too often in posts where I though it was relevant, and now HN won't accept any post with that URL. Caught by my own ignorance and actions, but it's still their right to run their site as they see fit]
> Also, a lot of downvoting on the internet is just "I disagree with you", or "I don't like what you're saying". It can be personal, and not necessarily useful to the original poster.
They will reduce or be discarded. If a system recognises that you don’t add value, then either such users will be forced to put in effort or simply be discouraged to pollute any post.
Platforms like Reddit suffer because you can coordinate with many users to push an agenda, since their is no accountability from users who only upvote or downvote. That’s why bot farm and coordinated campaigns thrive.
> Comes with the cost of putting yourself out there. Not everyone is going to like it, and you won’t agree with the reasons.
Even someone downvoting a post is expressing their opinion. Current Issue is, person downvoting is anonymous, provides no reason and can’t be held liable for their own action. This is ironic, if they also put themselves out there.
Inadvertently, down voters have a larger say in shaping a discussion even though their level of participation is minimal instead of someone who takes the effort to provide a well structured opinion.
This balance of power is skewed.
If downvoting means to disagree, one should know why.
Obviously. But HN does not install threshold for someone to start upvoting. Which in itself does not represent quality. The entire voting system does not makes sense.
Force someone to justify a downvote and you'll get some useful feedback. You'll also likely get a 'because your mom' bunch, unless you annotate the downvote with the username downvoting, and that's a big leap and would discourage downvotes.
Downvotes are a useful tool. If you can only ever upvote something, that is when the site-value is vulnerable to brigading - HN is probably not interested in lowering the signal-to-noise if farming accounts to upvote (and only upvote) is an option.
Also, a lot of downvoting on the internet is just "I disagree with you", or "I don't like what you're saying". It can be personal, and not necessarily useful to the original poster.
In other words, I disagree with you. Though I won't downvote (flag, I guess on posts) you. This time :)
[aside: I'm not some apologist for HN. I'd love to post my own pet-project [1] but I've linked to it too often in posts where I though it was relevant, and now HN won't accept any post with that URL. Caught by my own ignorance and actions, but it's still their right to run their site as they see fit]
1: (I'm assuming that HN-links are ok :) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50151036#50151160
> Also, a lot of downvoting on the internet is just "I disagree with you", or "I don't like what you're saying". It can be personal, and not necessarily useful to the original poster.
They will reduce or be discarded. If a system recognises that you don’t add value, then either such users will be forced to put in effort or simply be discouraged to pollute any post.
Platforms like Reddit suffer because you can coordinate with many users to push an agenda, since their is no accountability from users who only upvote or downvote. That’s why bot farm and coordinated campaigns thrive.
Comes with the cost of putting yourself out there. Not everyone is going to like it, and you won’t agree with the reasons.
Shouting “brigading” doesn’t do much to change that.
It also ignores the impact of upvotes, which can be used to the same effect, yet doesn’t receive the same request.
> Comes with the cost of putting yourself out there. Not everyone is going to like it, and you won’t agree with the reasons.
Even someone downvoting a post is expressing their opinion. Current Issue is, person downvoting is anonymous, provides no reason and can’t be held liable for their own action. This is ironic, if they also put themselves out there.
Inadvertently, down voters have a larger say in shaping a discussion even though their level of participation is minimal instead of someone who takes the effort to provide a well structured opinion.
This balance of power is skewed.
If downvoting means to disagree, one should know why.
No, if downvoting means to disagree, one wants to know why.
If one wants to provide why, there are replies for that.
It’s a qualitative instrument, making it quantitative will change the use. Meanwhile, abuse always finds a way.
If you have to explain downvotes, upvotes should also require an explanation. "Brigading" can go both ways.
Obviously. But HN does not install threshold for someone to start upvoting. Which in itself does not represent quality. The entire voting system does not makes sense.