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.
I don't think Hacker News' system kills lame articles. I have seen obvious troll blog posts and such reach the top of HN repeatedly.
The reason this happens is because of the following. Let us say that an ordinary story that is completely relevant to Reddit and is worth reading is upvoted by 50 people and downvoted by 10. This gets the story +40. Now, let us take a very controversial story, say, a blog post on how much git sucks that is obviously fishing for links. This story gets upvoted by many more people, say, 100 people... and downvoted by 300. It doesn't get near the front page.
Now, take the same on HN. The first story gets +50, the second gets +100, despite the majority of people believing it should not be on the front page.
This is not to say that the Reddit system is better, but rather that the HN system is not perfect.
Well, we kill everything the editors think is excessively lame. Downarrows would produce better results iff the userbase at large were better at deciding what was lame, which is probably not the case. Downvoting is often done reflexively, whereas killing something is a fairly momentous choice one thinks about first.
I think that HN does not really need down-voting for articles at all, but on the other hand, it needs some automated killing functionality.
EDIT: [About the editors, it takes an hour and sometimes more for a link to be killed, at least when I flag a link and I see it for hours - happened today. So maybe automation will help in any editors shortage]
For example, someone few days ago submitted your article "Why TV Lost", although it was already submitted, and we already discussed it! But he was able to do it, obviously because the submission detection script does not think that "www.domain.com" is the same as "domain.com", and treats them as different links.
Also if a link is submitted previously and it was dead because it's spam, then if a user tries to resubmits it again it should be killed automatically. Like Google homepage, myspace and all of these bla bla bla.
There are zillion techniques for preventing spam, and you know it better than me for sure.
But there is a vision that you have about spam on this website, that I don't really understand yet.
But google.com is the same as www.google.com? and ycombinator.com is the same as www.ycombinator.com? Got what I mean!
I am talking about the "www" which is the acronym of "world wide web", and it's automatically assigned to any domain name, so usually domain.com and www.domain.com points to the same host, unles if the sysadmin changes it which rarely happens.
I am talking about the "www." and NOT any other subdomain that the sysadmin/webmaster can add/change or remove.
I am sorry if you misunderstand what I am talking about.
Oh really?
I am sorry because I did not know it before.
Thanks for informing me, I really appreciate it. I am so glad that I am learning something new here everyday.
Thank you so much for your explanation, I really appreciate it.
Except in the second case, even if only a third of the people take the trouble to flag the article, it would have 100 points and 100 flaggings. Hopefully something getting flagged that much would be killed pretty quickly.
I like making a distinction between something that I simply don't find insightful and something that is actually trolling/spammy/false. In HN's case, my lack of an upvote is equivalent of not finding something insightful... my flagging is an indication of the latter.
Usually lame articles are gone within a day. You can tell when all the comments object and eventually people flag and editors go "okay, we'll remove it."
Yeah, that is correct, but lame articles usually only make it to the "new" page, and never the "real frontpage". I've submitted to HN 2 or 3 times now, and my articles have been killed for lameness.
(In my defense I thought they were good articles. But the system appears to work from my experience.)
"On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity."
"Stories on HN don't have to be about hacking, because good hackers aren't only interested in hacking, but they do have to be deeply interesting.
What does "deeply interesting" mean? It means stuff that teaches you about the world. A story about a robbery, for example, would probably not be deeply interesting. But if this robbery was a sign of some bigger, underlying trend, then perhaps it could be."
Hacker News isn't so much just about programming, but things that are interesting to programmers. It's entirely possible that the programmers that visit HN are interested in that topic.
I don't think it's even that anymore. Hacker News is now pretty much, "Interesting things, plus a lot of programmers use the site."
Which is good for everybody who uses HN as something other than a place to get tips about programming, which I expect is the vast majority of the HN user population.
It's a valid point, though. At what point is the line drawn? Political issues often result in uncivil discussion. There is also probably significant audience crossover with reddit that caused that post to rise up. Hackers may have an interest in libertarianism or economics, but does that mean that this site should become one about Ron Paul if people feel that way?
Editor control should be used to put a stop to that, IMO. Democracy is great, but it went too far with Reddit. HN would become much less useful to me if it went in that direction.
> It's a valid point, though. At what point is the line drawn?
That wasn't really his point so much as yours. ;)
> Political issues often result in uncivil discussion. There is also probably significant audience crossover with reddit that caused that post to rise up. Hackers may have an interest in libertarianism or economics, but does that mean that this site should become one about Ron Paul if people feel that way?
That is in fact a good question to ask, and I wasn't precluding it from being asked, but rather reiterating the stated goals for Hacker News. Such questions ought to be asked.
The reason political issues often result in uncivil discussion, me thinks, is we have not spent enough time in a forum (online or off) that demands civility in such discussions. If HN can provide both (1) topics members want to discuss along with (2) its approach of keeping the discussion civil, this seems a very good thing.
I am a big fan of hacking social and economic problems. If a topic is not of interest I ignore it. A thread rarely stays on the front page more than a day or two.
I originally came to HN for Web 2.0 news. But things have evolved.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports,
Isn't "How to stop the drug wars" about politics? I know it is exactly the kind of article I expect to find on Reddit. I was surprised to see it on the front page here. From the linked article:
> That is the kind of promise politicians love to make. It assuages the sense of moral panic that has been the handmaiden of prohibition for a century. It is intended to reassure the parents of teenagers across the world. Yet it is a hugely irresponsible promise, because it cannot be fulfilled.
Yeah, those guidelines: the ones that say "anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" is on topic and go out of their way to make explicit that this is "more than hacking and startups". Also, the ones that say "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site", which I wish you would respect.
This is not an article about politics?
My comment was plainly not about the article but about a false description you made of this site. The article itself strikes me as a borderline case. It can't really be called "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon", but neither is it narrowly about politics. It's an intellectually respectable piece about a thorny social issue. For me, it passes the test because of the interesting historical content of the first paragraph, which I was curious and gratified to learn.
If I could make one thing go away from HN it isn't egregiously off-topic articles, which the flagging-and-editing protocol handles just fine, but rather the incessant "The sky is falling, it's just like Reddit" meta-noise.
> Also, the ones that say "Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site", which I wish you would respect.
But that's precisely what happens when you give people no other option to vote against something: they write comments complaining about it. It's a direct and very literal consequence of the design decision not to allow downvotes on article submissions.
Besides, I only brought that up because pg said:
> The reason HN doesn't need downvotes is that HN, unlike Reddit, kills lame articles.
Which is generally true, but clearly not true today because the top rated article is, as you said, borderline. And from my perspective, it is not at all borderline, and I'd vote against it in a heartbeat.
The fact that people complain publicly about posts is a feature, not a bug: in moderation, it communicates among the group what the standards are for stories, and trains new users about flagging stories.
On the other hand, with a downvote, there's no opportunity for discussion, and the end result is that worthwhile stories about out-of-fashion concepts like Perl or .NET or software patents get suppressed.
It's worth mentioning how often the intent of voting is misconstrued; is it "I disagree with this" or "this adds no value"?
That last point is a doozy of a non sequitur. Borderline does not equal lame. Not everyone agrees on what is interesting, so there will always be borderline cases, and these are not a problem. On the contrary, they add to the intellectual diversity of the site, which is its mandate.
The problem is that the upvoters get a highly disproportionate say in the matter. Let's say
- 30% of the HN community finds that drug war article interesting. They all upvote it.
- 20% don't care or have no opinion. They do nothing.
- The other 50% think the article is only marginally on-topic. (I would say it is not at all on topic, but let's give the benefit of the doubt.)
For those HN users, the article isn't spam or evil or lame (it's the freakin' Economist!), so lumping it in with that sort of nastiness by flagging it seems extreme -- a bit like the nuclear option. I can't find any description of how the flagging works, so I don't know if flag counts are public or not.
What you end up with is a plurality of public upvoters balanced by a (I'm assuming) silent and mostly invisible minority of off-topic flaggers. These are very different axes of expression. They don't really balance each other in the case of a marginally on-topic submission.
What would help, particularly in these marginal cases, is a reciprocal downvote.
I have enough points to downvote comments, I come here all the time, and I've never felt the need to downvote a story. I just ignore it and wonder why everyone else thinks it's so interesting.
I totally respect the Economist, but are they really saying something about the pointlessness of the drug war that I haven't heard a thousand times over already? Furthermore does it belong on a site devoted primarily to programming topics?
And on top of that it is clearly politics, which isn't fun to discuss or engage in. Unless you enjoy other high-risk, low-reward activities like, say, juggling chainsaws..
I have a lot of nerdy friends who love discussing politics. Some of them also code. I don't think it's fair to make the generalization that politics isn't fun to discuss.
It is quite reasonable for upvoters to have a highly disproportionate say, because it's a highly disproportionate problem -- as you surely must realize, considering that you assign disproportionate effects to upvotes/downvotes on your own site.
But you never give any reasoning for your own disproportionate weights beyond what you personally feel is fair or seems to work. Granted, HN gives no little rationale as well, but that makes it at least as valid, having survived longer. It may be that the ideal weight for downvotes is even lower than 1/5th, or it may be that merely having downvotes at all hurts a site more than not having them.
The message an upvote sends is "I like this and I want to see more of it". Conversely, you seem to think a downvote should say "I hate this and want to see less of it", but when the site adds them directly to upvotes, the downvote message becomes "I hate this and I think everyone who voted it up is an idiot." A site using this mechanism sends the message "We are willing to allow controversial material as long as an enthusiastic subset of users votes it up." I would expect this to encourage clique voting over time.
By contrast, the message the flag system sends is "I don't think this belongs on the site; what do you think?" It defers the decision of what belongs on the site to editors. This is more work than letting the market decide, and it probably doesn't scale as well. However, it also ensures that the market doesn't take your site in directions that you don't want to go.
I understand the urge to make software perfect; but really a usable system need NOT be fair, democratic, open and with set rules that may be debated upon (e.g. www.xkcd.com: We don't ask for democratic control over what comics are "on-topic". Yes, I know it's a personal site; but consider: would you ask 37Signals to change their blog to your liking?)
What we really need is a system that works most of the time. The cost of a false negative with down-voting (losing a genuinely insightful article as off-topic etc) is simply too high, IMO.
As regards the comparison with Stack Overflow: I find it rather pointless; the sites exist to serve different purposes altogether.
Perhaps you could rethink your initial thoughts given all the comments above and provide an even more interesting analysis of how user behavior is modified by the presence of certain features... :)
I've created a number of social sites and I've come to the conclusion that down-voting should not generally be allowed/used. The reason is that 9 times out of 10 it's used as a way to say "I disagree with this" regardless of the quality or accuracy of the item in question. Usually based solely on political and religious world-views.
This effect is probably muted on SO which is primarily technical.
Isn't this exactly why downvoting should be a bit more prevalent than it is now? For marginally topical (and in my opinion completely off-topic) political stories like that?
Right now only the people who upvote it get to have a say.
I totally respect the Economist, but are they really saying something about the pointlessness of the drug war that I haven't heard a thousand times over already? Furthermore does it belong on a site devoted primarily to programming topics?
What next, some really intelligent analysis of Ron Paul?
It seems it does based on the voting. We also had a post by Tim Ferriss on the top of the page for nearly two days last week, not programmer specific but it was enjoyed / hated and had a good discussion going on about it.
This site is vastly related to programming and startups, but other topics that are of interest and thought provoking tend to rise up as an interest.
We don't have kittens on the front page, so I consider it a victory.
Yes, it does belong here, because it's interesting, and it's not like Hacker News is flooded with drug stories. It's okay to have the occasional off-topic article if it's one of the best of its genre.
There have also been intelligent, interesting stories about Ron Paul on Hacker News. For example this one ;-)
Man, I know you were joking, but suddenly I feel that a psychological/humor-driven analysis of popular memes might be a fascinating article to read/write.
I think flagging is a very different (and basically silent) axis of expression; you can't counter an upvote in the case of controversial, marginally on-topic questions like the drug war one.
I totally agree that some of the powers like voting down and flagging have to be earned through participation, by the way. We do the same thing on Stack Overflow.
flagging is a very different (and basically silent) axis of expression
I think the silence is a feature not a bug. The meta-noise reached its peak just before flagging was introduced, and it got way better after that. It still flares up intermittently, like now. An interesting observation is that it's mostly new(ish) users who post complaining meta-comments. Perhaps after they've been around for a while they notice that those discussions are always the same, as are the "sky is falling" threads.
Edit: uh-oh, the right margin is fast approaching. And damn it, I had managed to go at least 6 months without getting sucked in to this meta business!
Good and worthy discussion, though, because this is the very heart and soul of designing software (or at least web apps with discussion) for human beings.
As I understanding, flagging brings articles to the attention of the secret cabal of editors (no one knows who they are, beyond the fact that pg is likely one of them). The more an article is flagged, I presume, the more it stands out to their attention. They then make a manual decision whether to kill the article - and can even bring it back if they change their mind (I've seen that happen a few times).
So flagging in and of itself does not trigger any automatic removal of the article. There has to be a human action to remove the offending article.
The Stack Overflow guidelines prohibit discussion topics, but they still find their way through every once in awhile because the community doesn't mind them if they're interesting enough. Same thing here.
yes, that's true -- but we also allow people to vote against those off-topic articles, and move to close (or reopen) them. There's no way to vote down a link submission on HN.
Right but if enough people find it interesting it finds its way to the front page. I think it makes sense in the context of saying that if X people like this, more than X other people will probably like it too. And that's the point - find stuff that the audience likes.
I think that's pretty healthy. It means that Paul Graham gets an article to the front page one day, and the next day a rebuttal to that article goes up right next to it. Doesn't matter if all the people who agree with one want to downvote the other - as long as it's good, we all get a chance to judge for ourselves.
And that is EXACTLY the point! You can't vote it down, and that's a very good thing.
I've been friended by some people on digg - and they constantly shout battles at me: bury this, digg that. The bury brigades have gone to work on this, etc, etc.
You can't do that here, someone who hates a topic simply can not affect it. All you can do is say there are X number of people who are interested in something. It doesn't matter that some people hate the topic, or are opposed to it. They have no voice.
Example: If you have a very controversial topic that 50% of people agree with, and 50% of people disagree with. You will never see it if you have downvoting. But since there is only upvoting, you will. And I think that that is very very important, and it's one of the reasons this site is so much better than digg and reddit.
I've always thought that digg should frontpage also controversial stories, not just upvoted ones, but ones that have an almost even ratio of down/up votes.
And BTW you don't loose half of the information about votes for a topic - the algorithm here is that stories fall down over time, so time itself basically acts as a constant down vote. You have upvoting to counter that, and ignoring a topic to assist that.
Bill Gates once said something like: if I only read the stories that I am interested in, I'll never learn anything new - so I make a point of reading the entire newspaper. (I hope I remembered the quote correctly, it was from before the internet.)
Where's the UI to flag a story as off-topic? I don't see anything on the article page itself, and the FAQ ( http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html ) doesn't mention anything about flagging?
You apparently need at least 51 karma to flag a post. (The number may not be exact, it's not an official source. Also, it says "comments" not "posts", so there may be a different threshold for that)
No. Hacker News doesn't have to work the same way as Stack Overflow. Not only are these limits fluctuating and not really public, HN relies on human editors a lot.
That's okay; the models are really different. Stack Overflow needs to scale more because to be useful, there need to be thousands of questions asked every day, and every question needs to be able to get a response. Hacker News can be useful to me even if it only gets a hundred new stories a day, and it's not really a problem if many stories get axed for a bad reason.
karma limits change all the time, due to "inflation." it used to be pretty difficult to get to 100 points. these days you could get there in a day or two, if you're determined.
Yeah, I think it's karma. oh well, just get some karma and then talk a little more about it, eh?
I think I've flagged something....once. Yup. Most everything on the front page is interesting, the most interesting of which I upvote, and the few things that aren't I just don't read and let die. the front page changes enough to allow me to do that anyway.
On the article page, this is what I see: http://screencast.com/t/Wqa1zmMJ I don't know if there is a rep threshold for flagging, but I wouldn't be surprised.
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.
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.
Another thing worthy of mention is that if you only have upvotes the ranking of articles turn out to be considerably simpler. Ranking with both up and down votes is a lot harder.
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.