

Is HN only about saying nice things about everything? - DjDarkman

My personal problem with HN, is that every time I dare to write a comment that is not positive about something, I get downvoted and in most cases the downvoter doesn't care much about explaining it, even when my comment spawned an interesting discussion.<p>It's very annoying that 100+ karma users could act as really good trolls, they could just go around and downvote everybody without ever loosing karma, but costing the commenter karma.<p>Don't get me wrong I really enjoy the HN community, there are a lot of bright people here and very good content and discussions, it's just that the system discourages you to have your own opinion on anything, because if you write something that a 100+ user doesn't like he can simply downvote you irresponsibly.<p>TL, DR: I don't know maybe it's me, maybe I have too radical opinions on stuff. But overall I feel that the downvoters should loose some karma too, and maybe force the downvoter to write a reason for it, to make sure that they downvote responsibly.<p>PS: I am not saying neither that I'm always right nor that I never deserved the downvote.
======
jdietrich
I can only speak of my own personal approach to commenting. I evaluate my own
comments by one metric - whether I think my comment will make HN a smarter,
more interesting place. I see HN comments less as a forum for chit-chat and
more as a venue for a series of short essays on the topic of the original
post. I try to avoid making comments of the sort that are satisfying to post
but that I would not be interested in reading. If I don't think I'm being
reasonably insightful, I don't bother. For every comment I post, there are
usually one or two comments on other items that I decided weren't good enough
to post.

It seems to me that HN is relatively neutral in terms of your opinion; People
here seem to avoid the vice of downvoting based simply on a difference of
opinion, at least in my experience. The community generally seems to award
karma based on how thoughtful and carefully-constructed your comments are. I
have one one occasion been downvoted into oblivion for politely and carefully
expressing an opinion that is generally morally unpalatable, but someone came
to my defence and I eventually ended up with a small amount of positive karma
for the comment.

I think the easiest rule of thumb is to try and be the opposite of cable news.
The calmer and more dispassionate your tone, the more detailed and precise you
are in your reasoning, the more carefully you reference reliable sources, the
better your chances of being strongly upvoted.

------
SandB0x
There's criticism and there's negativity. You seem to be confusing these two
things. You can put your point across without snarky comments like:

 _"Vertical list of applications??? Microsoft what have you been smoking?"_

(As we're quoting rap lyrics today) I think that you'll be doing just fine if
you relax a little.

~~~
DjDarkman
I may be alone in this, but I like expressing my thoughts/feelings, as a
matter of fact, most of the time I want to make it really clear that what I
say is just my the way I see it.

Do I go a little bit too far with it? Maybe.

~~~
troutwine
I grew up in a blunt, German family. Very straight forward, often crude. I am,
as a result, one to speak my mind. Effective criticism is best delivered from
a high position: hyperbole and mistakes like "my the way I" debase an
otherwise salient point.

A good insult is like a fine, dry wine; it is bitter and refined. You come
across in your comment history as a dullard, enamored of his own ability to
shout at crowds.

~~~
jay_kyburz
I'm picturing Dwight Schrute as I read this.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_Schrute>

~~~
troutwine
I'm afraid that I have no understanding of that popular culture reference. Are
you calling me a fascist?

------
pg
Based on a cursory look at your comments I would guess the problem is not what
you say but how.

~~~
alnayyir
He's not the only one discontented with the state of the community. It's
gotten so bad here that I can't convince half the programmers I know that this
place is any better than a cult locked in a warehouse.

Almost no one I know takes anything anybody says here seriously, even if the
content stream is marginally better than the alternatives.

The focus has shifted from intelligent and thoughtful writing seeded by your
essays, to business-oriented boosterism fed by a provincial navel-gazing
audience who fail to censure themselves.

I'm someone who's already had a failed business, and even when my finances
were falling apart, I loved the thrill of it.

I love hacker culture and ambitious people. I plan to begin work on another
idea soon.

However, the situation here is untenable and the utility I once extracted from
being exposed to this community is being destroyed for the sake of a
minority's craven ambition and desire to fit in with the shibboleths of those
around them. I am not by any means alone. Everyone I know who follows the kind
of news and interests that is discussed here has been increasingly
disenchanted over the past year with hackernews.

This is not a site or community unto itself, it serves a real purpose for YC
and everyone is aware of this. You might call it a garden.

The garden needs pruning.

~~~
pg
Actually there was more business-oriented boosterism when we first launched.
The site was called "Startup News" initially.

The top stories don't seem visibly worse than they were in the good old days,
whenever those were. There are more dumb and/or mean comments than there used
to be, but they usually end up at the bottom of the page.

~~~
alnayyir
You seem to understand this, but it's hardly that I'm advocating tolerance for
dumb/mean commentary, but rather galled by the hostility towards healthy
skepticism.

We probably agree more than we don't. I might as well drop this albatross
since I don't have any real conclusions to draw or ideas to advocate.

Back to code.

------
lkrubner
I wrote about this on my own blog, and someone from Hacker News came and
posted a highly critical comment about me. They concluded:

"The reason you were downvoted and will continue to be downvoted is because
you don’t discuss topics with any intellectual integrity."

The comment was interesting since it was such a pure, mirror reflection of
what the commenter was doing. For instance, they posted anonymously, whereas I
always write using my real name, yet they called me a troll. They also accused
me of repeating myself, though they had also repeated themselves many times.
You can see the comment here:

[http://www.smashcompany.com/politics/the-stuff-that-gets-
dow...](http://www.smashcompany.com/politics/the-stuff-that-gets-downvoted-on-
hacker-news)

As the post indicates, I'm feeling ambivalent about Hacker News right now.
Sometimes the conversations are really interesting, but there is also a lot of
noise. Sometimes I learn a lot by participating in the conversations, but
other times I feel like I'm talking to people who have no interest in
understanding what I'm trying to say, and who are willing to use downvoting as
a method of shouting me down.

I'm ambivalent. I enjoy this forum, but I'm also thinking I should probably
invest my energy elsewhere. I've been reading this site for almost 2 years
now, and I've learned a great deal, and every day there are interesting new
articles posted. All the same, I get bored with conversations where I think
the other person isn't really interested in hearing what I might have to say.
And no doubt, vice versa, of course - clearly I upset someone, if they were
willing to pursue the conversation to my own blog (where I was writing about
Hacker News).

~~~
btilly
I don't agree with the drive by anonymous poster to your blog, but I do agree
with the downvotes you got below
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1821175>. (And no, I was not the
downvoter.)

The open question was how big of a stick the government should wield, and your
response was to implicitly ask whether the other person believed in
capitalism, and if not then should we go with communism? This is a straw man
comparison. There is a world of difference between saying that the government
should punish bad behavior harshly, and saying that the government should have
any active role in the day to day management of businesses.

In particular Stiglitz' proposal is that executives who can be shown to have
engaged in fraud and theft, be punished for it. He further seems quite unhappy
about corporate governance issues that in practice make it very hard for
shareholders - the theoretical owners of a company - to have any direct
ability to control compensation of CEOs, or to get an accurate picture of what
their own company is doing.

The appropriate discussion to have about this is whether Stiglitz'
characterization of the behavior is correct. And, if it is, then whether his
proscription would be reasonable, and whether or not it would solve more
problems than it causes. It is not to accuse someone of not believing that
capitalism works.

~~~
lkrubner
No where did I bring communism or capitalism into the conversation.

And, mind you, I am not critical of the anonymous poster on my blog - everyone
has a right to be critical. But it did make me think twice about whether
Hacker News is the right place for me to invest my time.

~~~
btilly
_No where did I bring communism or capitalism into the conversation._

Really? From <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1821175> I find:

 _Do you feel that economies where the bulk of economic activity is organized
via free actors engage in voluntary exchange tend to be more dynamic than
economies where the government plays the major role in organizing economic
activity?_

What are you talking about if not capitalism? Then you go on to say:

 _If not, on what basis would you justify allowing the existence of non-
governmental economic activity?_

That sure as heck looks like a reference to something that famously happens in
communism.

And both were straw men when referring to the parent comment. Which in effect
boiled down to saying that it was possible that it could be easier to
discourage gaming the system by providing bigger punishments for bad behavior
than it is to do it by providing bigger incentives for not gaming the system.

Which actually seems like a good point to me. Increasing punishment would mean
punishing CEOs that all agree have done something wrong, possibly with prison.
Providing counter incentives means what? Do we give them more money than they
would have made gaming the system as a thank you for not having gamed it? I
for one would find that hard to swallow, and I doubt I'm alone!

Returning to the main thread of this conversation, it is up to each of us to
decide how to spend our time. If you're not getting value (enjoyment,
learning, reputation etc) for energy spent here or anywhere else, you
shouldn't do it. If you are, you should continue to do it, and maybe should do
it more. I can't make the decision for you. But that anonymous poster struck
me as out of line, and doesn't seem to me to be the norm for this community.

~~~
lkrubner
btilly, nowhere did I bring communism or capitalism into the conversation. It
is interesting that you think I did. This is the where so many of these
conversations break down: people use these words differently, and so, often a
diverse group of people, not understanding each other's vocabulary, will end
up talking past one another, each thinking that the other means something
else.

You wrote:

"Which in effect boiled down to saying that it was possible that it could be
easier to discourage gaming the system by providing bigger punishments for bad
behavior than it is to do it by providing bigger incentives for not gaming the
system."

Correct, which is I why I suggested that larger fines might be a reasonable
option to look at. In the article, Stiglitz' points out that the fines that
are now imposed are laughably small compared to the money that some of these
people made in the financial deals discussed in the article. To my mind, the
next obvious step is to increase the fines, till they offer a reasonable
incentive not to engage in a particular activity. As I wrote before "I can
think of a lot of incentives that might be put in place to help align the
interests of those writing the mortgages and those who are receiving the
mortgages". Larger fines for misrepresentation would be the most obvious
incentive to try here.

I could go into some detail about the different ways that people have
historically used the words "capitalism" and "communism." However, past a
certain point, such writing becomes incredibly tedious. Strunk and White, in
their book Elements Of Style, compare normal writing to legal writing. No one
can write well, they say, who doubts the intelligence of their reader. Good
writing depends on assuming good will on the part of ones readers. They
contrast that to legal writing. When lawyers draw up a legal document, they
assume the document will be read in bad faith. After all, if 2 parties still
have good will between them, they rarely need to consult their written
agreements. It's when all good will is gone that people pull out the
contracts. Therefore legal documents need to be written with great redundancy
and verbosity, to try to drive out any ambiguity and to try to cover every
edge case.

Not mentioned in Strunk and White is the case where the reader bears no ill
will to the writer, but through inexperience with the subject is unable to
reach conclusions that the writer regards as obvious. For this latter kind of
reader, a simplified kind of writing is sometimes required, and this kind of
writing resembles the kind of writing you would do if you were assuming bad
faith on the part of the reader - it is a kind of writing that tries to define
everything, and drive out ambiguity. I often engage in this kind of writing
when I'm trying to explain things to my customers.

This kind of writing can be compared to the kind of software that tries to
take into account every edge case. We all know that, for non-trivial software,
there is a substantial gap between the effort needed to get the software
working for the simplest case, versus the effort needed to ensure that the
same software takes into account every edge case that it might face. The first
kind of coding tends to be fun, the second kind of coding tends to be tedious.

I'm willing to engage in that latter kind of writing for my job. Should I make
that kind of effort on Hacker News? Such writing can be exhausting - it is
often a verbose kind of writing, and, above all, it needs to be a very careful
kind of writing. There are places where I recognize the importance of making
such an effort - at work, and with certain friends when a subject is
emotionally charged, and when I've undertaken some substantial responsibility.
I find that I'm only able to write like that for maybe 5 or 6 hours a day - it
takes too much out of me to focus at that level for much longer than that.
Does it make sense for me to invest some of those hours on Hacker News?

To the extent that I can assume I'm being read in good faith, I can write with
some shortcuts. That is the way I have conversations with friends. If I can't
assume good faith, then I need to engage in much more careful style. As I
said, this only seems worth it to me when the stakes are high.

You can, perhaps, understand my ambivalence? On a subject like the one
involving the article about Stiglitz, yes, I could spend 2 hours putting
together a careful essay explaining my views, how they formed, who I've read
and how it influenced my thinking on the subject, and why I think an important
aspect of the article is being overlooked. But am I being paid to to spend 2
hours that way? If not, I can probably spend those 2 hours more profitably
elsewhere.

Thus, as I said, I'm ambivalent about continuing to participate on Hacker
News.

------
akadien
Dude, it's karma points on HN. A number on a server somewhere that has no
bearing whatsoever on your real life. Have some perspective.

~~~
kls
I don't know about it not being important, I have made several important
connections on HN that I don't think would have happened if I had little to no
Karma. I have helped two individuals on here with advice on their start-ups
offline from HN, I have worked with another to help him advance himself
personally. I have picked up a few freelance gigs on HN. And I have expanded
my network.

I feel confidence that if I where in a pinch, I could call on the community to
help me find some contract work if need be.

To say that it is just some virtual bits floating around somewhere is to
discount the real world connections that this site provides and I think Kara
at some level serves as you credibility when making those connections, just
like everything else, it is what you make of it.

The constant focus on not being adversarial promotes an environment of
collaboration over competition, in which the individual members feel a bond of
tribe among one another and therefore look to help one another out. I have to
say it is a refreshing break from some of the rudely arrogant attitudes that
are tolerated and sometimes promoted on some other sites.

------
Towle_
This is one of several diseases in HackerNews.

There's a whole spectrum of ways to disagree, _all of which_ have value in the
right situation. Here, a good portion of that spectrum has been lobbed off in
the name of niceness and nothing more. Is it worth it? Decide for yourself. I
say nay.

Bonus disease: PG worship. Don't get me wrong, he's a brilliant guy; we're all
here (directly or indirectly) because of him. But it goes too far.

~~~
Locke1689
I'm not sure it's exactly a disease. I'd rather call it a blindspot.

On the topic of "PG worship" I think, yes, perhaps the constant extolment goes
a little to far. I think this is a blindspot of HN simply because most of us
are pretty polite. One doesn't go into a host's house and take a dump on the
floor, if I may. Sometimes I feel it may be rude to criticize Paul in this
forum for a similar reason.

~~~
Towle_
I feel that mindset runs contrary to the mission of the site itself.

Criticism is not impolite. In fact, it's the direct opposite. Criticism is a
show of respect. You criticize someone when you care about them, when you
desire their betterment _and_ you respect them enough to be confident that
they will not react negatively to the idea that someone else may know better
than they do.

~~~
Locke1689
I agree -- it just brought a viscerally bad reaction the first time I did it.
After reflection, though, I saw nothing wrong. I think that a similar
experience may occur with others. It may help if Paul himself said something
about this, but I'm not sure it's important enough to merit the attention.

------
wzdd
This is fascinating, because there was a post a little while back proposing
the opposite effect, titled "the default position of HN is skepticism". Here
it is:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629583>

------
8ren
My observation over a couple of years is that HN is consistently - sometimes
boringly - critical. The top comment often is in disagreement with the
submission, sometimes focusing on an incidental point, and it can seem that
people actually compete to criticise on HN.

Since this is HN, you might consider reading pg's essay _how to disagree_ ,
and apply it to your comments before adding them:
<http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html> Note that articulate, dispassionate
criticism is one of the most difficult skills to master - so don't be
discouraged if it takes a while to make progress. It's a valuable skill, and
well worth the effort.

tl;dr HN upvotes intellectual disagreement.

~~~
AndrewS
Intellectual disagreements are usually more interesting than agreements,
particularly when the original article is well written and doesn't require
commentators to fill in the gaps.

------
Mithrandir
There _is_ a bit of a bad psychological effect on HNers: don't say things that
might get people angry/to disagree, or your Karma goes down. But there is also
a good psychological effect as well: don't say stupid things (like "LOL,
wut?"), or you'll get down-voted.

Either way you look at it, there's a bit of good and bad in HN.

------
DjDarkman
Well I did not expect so many responses. Thanks everyone for both the positive
and negative comments, I have read all of them and I will keep them in mind.

BTW: It's not the Karma points that bothered me, it's the grayish color that
some of my comments got and that some downvoters just downvote and don't
respond.

------
johnnygood
I decided to look through your comment history to see what postings you've
been downvoted for. There's a decently common theme. Usually they have
flippant remarks and/or curse words.

"Microsoft what have you been smoking?"; "You are so fuckin wrong"; "OMG so
much stupidity."; "Windows Phone 7 is a really good vapor-ware. And ridiculous
patents + broken patent system are the key to success" (when Windows Phone 7
had already shipped to OEMs); "I guess if they get killed, they had it
coming."; "(YAWN) You could have written that code in most languages with most
databases years ago!"

We're looking for a level of respect that isn't shown by those phrases. The
Hacker News Guidelines (<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>) are a
good place to start:

* Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation.

It's common to bash people on the internet, but we tend not to like that here.
We do disagree here. Recently there was a large thread on Ubercab and whether
their service is so ethical and responsible. Lots of people with lots of
differing viewpoints were upvoted. They raised issues (rather than just being
blindly for or against someone). It was enlightening to see the nuance and
insight that lots of different people brought to the discussion and how
complex the issue was. You can disagree without attacking a person.

* When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Comments that include things like "OMG so much stupidity" just make people
feel attacked and defensive. The statement doesn't add to the discussion and
just makes things more combative. It's as if you're trying to discourage
people from disagreeing with you because you'll call them stupid if they do.
"I think this is important to consider"; "OMG, you're just so stupid". It
isn't helpful. Plus, there are plenty of places on the internet if your
interest is flamewars.

* Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

------
joshuacc
Some things you could do to make your critical comments more valuable to the
community:

1\. Avoid unnecessary profanity.

2\. Avoid ridicule and sarcasm, especially when directed at other HNers.

3\. Avoid complaining about "trolls" downvoting you. In fact, avoid discussing
karma in general.

4\. Avoid using emotionally laden terms of disapproval. Instead use direct
objective language ("There were rendering artifacts in the rotation effects")
or clearly state the subjective aspects of what you are discussing ("Something
about the rotation effects rubs me the wrong way.")

5\. Be concise and relatively formal in your language.

------
T_S_
OK, I bit and looked at your comments. You _did_ grab some upvotes when it was
snarky-but-clever, or simultaneously raised a good question. Most other
comments are not getting upvotes due to unfiltered venting. Maybe apply a
filter. A lot of knee-jerk anti-MS in there. I have similar gut reactions to
the keywords MS and Ballmer but I noticed a long time ago that many people
(even tech professionals!) did not relate (what are they smoking!?). Maybe try
some other topics that allow you to share more concrete knowledge with HN
readers.

------
brk
To me it seems that HN has mostly been about content and thoughtful
presentation. Not all of my comments are always happy unicorn rainbows, but if
I'm presenting an alternative or unpopular opinion I (try) to at least explain
my reasoning and logic.

Lame jabs, cheap shots, bad jokes, and vapid comments DO seem to get rightly
pounded down.

------
kls
_100+ user doesn't like he can simply downvote you irresponsibly_

I personally, think the downvote activation should be a combination of length
of membership and karma. It does seem that as of late, there has been an
increase in "I don't agree with you, so down you go".

I am with you on this one, there is a specific subject I talk about a lot on
here "JavaScript based UI's", I have been doing web development since about
the day after TBL released Mosaic (That is not an exaggeration) and it is my
opinion that the web was broken shortly after we moved from CGI post to server
side web frameworks that introduces state.

I think the JavaScript UI's and REST bring web apps back into the original
architecture of the web and that they bring us back to the architecture that
was started so long ago.

Anyway, I am getting off on a tangent. There are a good deal of developers who
disagree with this, some instead of forming a rebuttal use the down arrow as
their rebuttal.

For me personally I see it, when used in that context, as a "I don't have a
strong rebuttal, so I will try to make you post go away" line of reasoning. I
had one guy get so annoyed at me, that he went in and bombed me on any post
that he and I did not have an exchange on (you can not down vote if you reply
to a post).

To me those kinds of actions are site killers, fortunately for HN, it has not
reached a critical mass, and it still has a good deal of intellectuals looking
for good conversation. I have just chalked it up to, oh well you take you
licks. At the point that all of my post get downvoted then I will know that I
have been voted off the island, and that it is time for me to leave, which is
fine as the community will not be representative of the people I am looking to
interact with. As of yet that is not the case, so I just go with the flow.

------
jasonlotito
Consider your question here

> Is HN only about saying nice things about everything?

This implies fault lies with HN. You make the assumption that you are right
(despite your PS).

A better question is:

> I'd like to contribute; can anyone offer advice to improve my comments?

Humility, and no assumption.

Again, here:

> I don't know maybe it's me, maybe I have too radical opinions on stuff.

Again, this is conceited. It's not your 'radicalism.' It's your ego talking.

> I am not saying neither that I'm always right nor that I never deserved the
> downvote.

But your entire comment suggested that you weren't in the wrong.

> I may be alone in this, but I like expressing my thoughts/feelings, as a
> matter of fact, most of the time I want to make it really clear that what I
> say is just my the way I see it.

No, you aren't. You aren't "alone" in this. Rather, your ability to
communicate effectively is lacking. Indeed, it's very egotistical. You're
focused completely on "your opinion" and frankly, your opinion holds no value.

In all your comments, I see you place a lot of value on your opinion. Your
opinion can't be wrong, and it's yours, and you'll share it. But who are you
that we should care about your opinion?

This doesn't mean you can't offer opinion. It's just that you need to qualify
you opinion with reasoning. You can't just state an opinion and expect
everyone to see the wisdom.

Listen, you seem like your interested in providing value here. Disagree with
whatever you want. But don't just disagree, explain why you disagree. With
examples is best!

Be specific.

Do more than ask pointless questions (especially questions that are answered).
Anyone can ask questions.

> Vertical list of applications??? Microsoft what have you been smoking?

Provides no value.

> Vertical list of applications? I'm not sure this will grow well. As users
> add applications, it will make for a lot of scrolling.

Goes further and provides actual meaning. People might still disagree, but now
you've explained your opinion.

You've generated discussion.

Hopefully all of this (thread) helps! =)

~~~
DjDarkman
Ok, you have a point, the thing that has annoyed me is that I got downvoted
for comments that are not "ego talking".

If I write something like "<something> is a load of crap in my opinion" I
don't mind getting downvoted, but a lof of times I get downvoted even when I
am strict and technical, and again this won't bother me if people would supply
a response.

Having a "well formed" comment simply downvoted is equal to simply replying
that "Your comment is so crap that it's not even worth my time to explain
why.".

> You've generated discussion.

Yes it seems that there is a way to do this properly, as I wrote I still get
downvoted, even when I'm polite, but it looks like the bright people greatly
outnumber the others here in HN.

~~~
chmike
Keep in mind that it takes just one or two person to downvote you while there
might be 400 or more readers who had nothing to complain about your comment.
So it may not be as bad as it looks. Especially if the downvotes are because
you just used three ??? Or !!11! Instead of one.

If it's frequent then there might be indeed a problem. Think about and try to
understand what PG observed about your comments.

I also often get downvoted. Think of it as just a tool helping to sort
comments, not to judge you. I benefit from it too to read the "best" comments
first. But when i'm really interrested in the topic i read all comments, even
if they are downvoted. I also sometime upvote downvoted comment when I think
it was abusive because I know how it feels.

------
iuguy
I think there's a difference between saying nice things about everything and
being polite and constructive in your criticism.

Everyone can be a dick, sometimes. Heck, I'm probably a dick the majority of
the time, but I decided a while back to be nicer to people on the Internet.
That's part of the reason I upvote people who prove me wrong and thank them
for it. If my horizons are expanded, or my assumptions challenged here and
they stand on their own two feet then great. If not, then even better - I'm
less wrong, so to speak.

The thing about this community is that brings together people like Zed Shaw
and Seth Godin, two people I regard as polar opposites, each with their own
focus. The people on the Seth side of the fence will be perhaps more likely to
be turned off by the Zed Shaws of the world, as is vice versa.

Challenging them is fine and should be encouraged. Giving them grief, less so.

Usually when I read a techcrunch article posted here, I feel as though I die a
little inside. Still, people like Gabriel, Patrick, Colin and even Thomas
stand out to me as guys that I enjoy reading.

When criticising, it might help to consider the following:

* What does my comment add to the discussion?

* Can my comment be interpreted in a way other than how I intended it? (In which case a rewrite may be in order)

* How will other readers perceive what I write? (as an extension of the last one).

You get out what you put in. If you want to criticise, fine. But please do so
in a constructive manner.

Any HN'ers got any more ideas for constructive criticism?

------
momotomo
Example thread: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1829049> \- the open
source campfire submission. People thrashed the UI in this thread but for the
best part weren't negative or offensive.

People on HN are happy to pull something apart if it's incorrect, they just do
it in an even tempered manner.

Additionally: This isn't reddit or slashdot, a lot of people here are looking
to gain funding or contacts, therefore HN has much lower anonymity. Therefore
more likely to be civil and appropriate.

------
Groxx
Seems to me a fair number of your non-positive comments have been upvoted. If
you dropped a lot, it could be from the / any -4 troll-claiming. Points only
_display_ to -4, but they can go much lower.

But yes. Critical comments: frequently upvoted. Non-critical, _negative_
comments: _essentially_ worthless for the sake of discussion, and are
frequently downvoted here. Not many other places online, but I think it's part
of why the community is in general so much more useful and mature than many
others.

------
ohyes
No, but you do have to say things nicely.

What does this mean?

Good attempt at spelling and punctuation. Don't curse too much, don't use
excessive punctuation, proofread. Reread your post objectively and ask
yourself 'am I trolling'. Attempt to make an argument supported by facts and
intelligent reasoning.

Don't bother complaining about karma when someone down votes you for posting
an unpopular opinion or being wrong. You posted an unpopular opinion or didn't
check your facts thoroughly enough, what did you expect? With that 1 karma and
a cup of coffee, you can sell the cup of coffee for a dollar.

Also, check your facts and post relevant links.

(So pretty much pretend like you are a hybrid of on a date, writing a term
paper, and applying for a job, rather than posting on an internet forum.

Everyone posts a clunker once in a while, but try not to get too worked up
about it. After all, this is entertainment, not serious business.

------
InclinedPlane
I just took a glance at my recent comments. Most of them are nominally
negative (by about 2:1). Most of them have several upvotes, none of them
appear to be downvoted.

People on HN enjoy criticism just fine, but they don't particularly enjoy
standing next to a spigot of feces. The problem is that vitriol and excessive
emotion skews debate. It makes the debate about the emotion itself, rather
than about the issue at hand. When people get into a shouting match their
brains shut down and people stop arguing rationally (the fight-or-flight
response kicks in, blood starts being withdrawn from the extremities and some
of the higher brain-function areas, the reptile brain starts taking over, and
it becomes much more difficult to admit being wrong or that the other person
might be right). This sort of thing is not helpful if the goal is productive
rational debate.

~~~
T_S_
You, sir, have ruined my dinner with your "spigot of feces" imagery. Upvoting
since I need drop a few pounds.

------
rwhitman
As annoyed as I get when I receive downvotes, I think for the most part
looking back, the comments were either divisive (and hence got some heated
disagreement-based downvotes) or probably justified as downvote-worthy.

For the most part the moderation system works. But it forces you to think very
hard about how valuable your comment is.

------
jamesteow
I've found the contrary. On Reddit, the hivemind is ever present. On HN,
generally it's far less prevalent... though it could just be confirmation
bias.

Just like Reddit, downvotes should be cast on comments/submissions that don't
add anything as opposed to providing an unpopular opinion.

------
justin_vanw
You can say quite negative stuff, but it is much harder to get away with
trolling outright.

My diatribe against django: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1490415>

Me telling some digg engineer that the plan to switch to cassandra was
retarded, way back in '09: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=813967>

Calling the content of a submitted article 'crap':
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=772693>

I guess I might get away with negativity without being modded into oblivion,
my secret is that my posts have some sort of information content.

------
rokamic
<blockquote>it's just that the system discourages you to have your own opinion
on anything</blockquote>

Please continue to bring your own opinion's to us, for the benefit of all.

Opinion's are cool, but intelligent ideas and lessons-learned are better.

------
T_S_
There is definitely style of negative comment that attracts downvotes on HN.
If you care about karma, it is usually easy to avoid as many comments in this
thread point out.

Unfortunately there is always a temptation with karma systems to use them for
"social proof". Social proof is implemented by downvoting opinions you
disagree with and vice versa. The only ego-preserving way of dealing with this
is to view your minority opinions as "ahead of your time" and resolve to
politely keep up the thought leadership.

EDIT: I bit and looked at your comments. Suggestions on the thought leadership
appear in another message.

------
icco
I don't know about HN being only a place to say nice things, but I do wish
people would explain their downvotes.

If people knew what was wrong with what they were saying, then they wouldn't
say it.

------
catshirt
Not for nothing, but nearly all of the comments I looked at on your first 2
pages are pretty negative. Not that negativity is always necessarily a bad
thing (ironically), but really man, why so angry?

------
bloomshed
For any recent applicants to YC, how much does your expectation of
contributing to the forum affect the comments and tenor of your posting?

If I were to answer my own question, I would say that I probably focus more
energy than I should on sounding more insightful than I normally am and I get
frustrated with a lot of the inane types of discussions such as: "What does it
mean to be a successful tycoon who conquers the world and what's wrong with
people who aren't successful tycoons who take over the world?"

------
volida
If you are getting downvoted continuesly, why don't you take it as a sign you
are indeed say something wrong?

from your comments:

"I found the UI unappealing and the heavy use of rotation effects amateurish."

edit: that is mean, although because it was about Microsoft/Windows Phone 7 as
a whole, there is almost zero direct effect on the people who worked on it,
and therefore may reduce it's meaness factor by 0.001%, but amateurish and
unnapealing? come on, that reveals negative energy.

~~~
mquander
It's not that it's mean, it's that it's content-free. If I wrote "I think the
Windows Phone 7 UI looks cool and the rotation effects are awesome" then I
hope you would downvote it, because that is a trashy comment. (The real
comment in question had 4 more lines, but they were all equally vapid.)

You have a specific comment about some identifiable aspect of the rotation
effects? OK. You have evidence that the new wave of Zune-ish Windows UI style
is not popular? Neat. You want to compare some design decisions between the
WP7 UI and the iPhone or Android UIs? Sure, go for it. But if you have nothing
to say, why say it?

~~~
jamesteow
How is that a trashy comment? You're affirming that they did something right
which is a plus. Not everyone has the means to fully explain why they like or
dislike something. Sometimes its just a gut feeling. Or sometimes it doesn't
need an explanation.

~~~
mquander
If it were in response to a person on HN (or a Microsoft employee!) who was
looking for feedback, I might agree with you. There's a place for simple
praise. But what's the use of affirming your love for the new huge product of
a big corporation somewhere?

Anyone can say whether they like or dislike something, and if that's an
acceptable contribution in itself, everyone will. Welcome to Gizmodo and
Engadget. The end result is that more substantiative comments and comments
from actual experts are covered in goop.

------
lsc
_It's very annoying that 100+ karma users could act as really good trolls,
they could just go around and downvote everybody without ever loosing karma,
but costing the commenter karma._

Really good trolls? does getting downvoted really get you all that riled up?
As far as I can tell, once you are over 100 and can downvote, getting more
carma does not alter your user experience.

I'd suggest you grow a thicker skin, especially if you want to say mean things
on the internet.

------
gord
I mostly agree.

I think we need to accept some false positives [such as foul language] in
order to preserve a reasonable level of freedom of speech on HN.

Here I mean freedom of speech in the weak form, ie. that you stop posting
something you truly believe, because of fear it will attract down-votes.

Useful ideas/opinions that occur in the long tail may offend some people - but
I think HN is too uniform and PC without them.

~~~
steveklabnik
People use foul language all the time, and get upoted:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1636262>

------
SabrinaDent
You could also decide you're going to say what you think on the topics where
you feel you have something of value to add, say it as best you can, and not
worry about the karma.

I'm not being snarky. It's a perfectly legitimate way to operate if you're
clear that being able to dictate your own header color isn't why you're here.
It's OK to opt out of the parts of the system that are not working for you.

------
mattmaroon
Nah, you can say all the bad things you want. They just have to be about
Microsoft, government, or intellectual property.

Seriously though, nobody likes a negative Nancy. From looking at your comments
it isn't that they aren't positive, it's that they are just ranting.

------
jrockway
I am constantly negative and I have 22,000 karma points. It must be something
else.

------
vgurgov
critics is easy. seriously. give me any topic and i will explain you why its
shitty. seriously i can do that, and not just me.

constructive critics is very hard. By cc i mean comments that will not make
feel poster like complete idiot, but rather gently stimulate him to rethink
something about his idea, and went away with feeling of appreciation of your
insightful efforts to help him.

one of my teachers told me: its easy to punch your opponent in the face. its
much harder to kindly explain him why is he wrong in his intents, so that
after that conversation he would ask you to become his sensei.

------
bluesmoon
I received 3 downvotes for a link to XKCD suggesting that readers lack a sense
of humour. No one felt like leaving a comment stating why they downvoted.

~~~
mooism2
I think it suggests readers don't want HN to be a place where links to
cartoons and lolcats are overvalued. Perhaps they go too far in the other
direction.

~~~
bluesmoon
If readers in general don't want that, I should really have gotten many more
downvotes. 3 downvotes suggests that a few people just didn't like my comment
while everyone else was indifferent.

------
khatarnaak
Good way to get KARMA points Mr. DjDarkman, before this discussion his KARMA
was ~20-30, now 74 elevated by 55 points. Nice way to get KARMA points :).

------
iterationx
Entrepreneurs have to be optimistic and positive or else they wouldn't even
try. HN is a place for entrepreneurs, voilà.

------
petervandijck
I don't think it would be a good sign either if you never get downvoted. And
who cares about karma, I mean, really?

------
sliverstorm
Take it as a life-lesson. People are more responsive to criticism and opposing
opinions when it's expressed in a positive way, even if the core of the
message is the same. While it's more satisfying to make clever remarks
(believe me, I know), I've literally learned via HN how to craft negative
statements in a positive way to get people to listen to me, and I'm sure you
can learn the same.

(See what I did there?)

------
ptarjan
Judging by every article about Facebook recently, I disagree with you.

------
drcode
I write negative comments all the time and they seem to do fine.

------
kingkawn
There is no cost in a system that has no meaningful value.

------
ashitvora
I'm sure you will get maximum up votes for this post. :)

------
Mz
It doesn't matter what system you use, it will have good points and bad
points. Ultimately, people issues aren't resolved by a better voting system or
some such. They are resolved by fostering the right culture, which is somewhat
independent of the system.

------
alnayyir
I agree with what you're saying, and it's been severe enough that I've taken
to either not bothering to comment, or simply deleting my comment because HN
had apparently deemed it that bereft of value.

The circle-jerk behavior is what is damaging the credibility of the startup
scene and it's making it harder for me to convince my fellow programmers that
it's the place to be.

I don't think just low karma users are guilty of down-voting in inappropriate
situations. I had a discussion with Justin Kan awhile back and he was
demonstrating the viewpoint that you're finding problematic.

~~~
fuzzywuzzy
I second that! HN has become a bit of a echo chamber; more or less as a direct
result of the decision to have down-vote privileges scale with the number of
HN commenters, thus disproportionally weighting down-votes in the direction of
those who have been properly cloned. Although, I must say, the echo chamber
effect is not as bad here as it is on (for example) the Derek Sivers blog [[
<http://sivers.org/blog> ]].

------
Charuru
I downvote people that I disagree with. It's never because it's too honest or
too negative or too rude, I don't care about that. I downvote if I think it's
wrong or misinformed.

This applies to nearly every one of your comments on Microsoft.

~~~
karmawhore
Too many people downvote people that they disagree with which is the downfall
of a karma based system. What if you disagree, but they are right? Why do you
dislike the fact that someone may have an opinion that differs from yours?

Downvoting people you disagree with implies that you are always right. I bow
down to your perfection.

~~~
julsonl
You forgot to read the part where he mentioned downvoting because the
information was wrong or misinformed. The same way I'll get downvoted if I
furiously debated that an apple's color is always blue.

~~~
karmawhore
No, because he THOUGHT it was wrong or misinformed. Large difference between
something being wrong and him thinking it is wrong -- unless he is always
right.

If something is factually correct, and he disagrees with it and thinks it is
wrong, it gets a downvote. I was actually more amused that he got upvotes as
it sort of reinforces the point I was trying to make.

By his logic, if we disagree with his point, we should downvote him, whether
his opinion has merit or not.

------
Oxryly
Yes, you simpering vole.

------
paulnelligan
y'know a few downvotes are not the end of the world either. The most downvotes
I've ever seen anyone get never exceeds 4. I've seen hundreds of upvotes for
some submissions. So if you're worried about the karma, just post something
interesting. Guaranteed you'll get your karma back AND still have the freedom
to criticize something if you feel the need.

~~~
joshuacc
That's because the publicly displayed score for any comment bottoms out at -4
in order to prevent a "dogpile" effect. Every downvote still deducts karma,
though it may not be publicized in the comment's score.

~~~
Mz
Makes me wonder what the effect would be of doing the same sort of thing for
upvotes.

------
drdo
I support this thread completely.

------
MountainDrew
I don't wanna read your posts no more, you empty-headed animal food-trough
wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your
father smelt of elderberries!

Would you prefer that?

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

