
Tell HN: Downmodding needs to die - robgibbons
Dear HN,<p>I have always considered HN, as a community, to be a place of great insight, interesting viewpoints, and otherwise extremely relevant information. I have enjoyed many conversations, and had even more educational moments, thanks to its users.<p>But we seriously need to talk about the downmods.<p>Downmodding, on its own, is harmless. Allowing users to downmod each other, as a means of curbing abuse, is an invaluable tool: self-policing of users has obvious merits which should be rightly acknowledged. However, downmodding as a means of pure disagreement should be unconditionally banned on Hacker News. The fact that downmodding is an acceptable means of expressing disagreement is a disservice to public commentary. If a comment is relevant and non-abusive, there is no reason it should ever be downmodded.<p>In other words: If you are downmodding out of disagreement, you should not have downmod privileges. If you don&#x27;t agree with a message, use your words. Don&#x27;t try to prevent others from reading it.<p>Downmodding only serves to promote resentment among users with unique viewpoints. The ability to express relevant but controversial opinions is fatally hindered when those opinions are suppressed due to unpopularity. Downmodding is a form of communal censorship, and it should be treated as such. For a community which bills itself as for hackers, and by hackers, &quot;popular opinion&quot; should be the least of all factors -- it should be scoffed at by any self-respecting hacker. Dissenting opinions, especially unpopular ones, should be championed -- not downmodded.
======
DanBC
People who complain about downvote for disagreement all say the same thing:
"downvotes turn comments grey and thus hide the conversation".

No.

Downvoting will only turn a comment grey if none of the ten thousand logged in
users thinks your post is good enough to upvote, and if someone downvotes it.

Greyed comments are not the result of one or two down-vote abusing people but
the result of very many people thinking your comment doesn't add enough to get
an upvote.

And this is true even after the comment is grey. In that case none of the
people with upvote privs (anyone with an account) thinks the downvote was
wrong enough to need correcting.

The only reason to stop downvoting for disagreemet is to stop people posting
these meta threads.

People _will_ downvote to disagree. You need to work on methods to fix the
result rather than changing behaviour -- upvote those comments that you think
are incorrectly downvoted.

EDIT: if anything we need more downvoting and flagging.

Here's a comment that had one or two downvotes and went at least thirty days
live. (It got more flags when I pointed out that someone was talking to a
holocaust denying troll) HN is not a free for all - there are other places for
that.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9200905](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9200905)

~~~
stephenr
So let me see if I understand your suggestion:

I see Billy has posted a comment. Jane has replied to Billy's comment, with a
dissenting viewpoint, and her comment has subsequently been down voted because
people disagree.

I happen to agree with Billy's point of view and disagree with Jane, but if I
want to support a truly _open_ discussion about the topic, I have to upvote a
comment I disagree with?

How does that make _any_ sense?

~~~
DanBC
You upvote comments that add to the conversation. When you see a comment that
adds value you upvote it _even if you disagree with it_ , especially if you
think it has been unfairly downvoted.

There are people on HN who do this.

Edit: I mean, there are so many people saying "don't downvote to disagree"
that the problem of greyed but constructive comments would be fixed if they
just upvoted more often. Why don't they take this burden upon themselves,
changing their own behaviour, rather than calling for other people to change
theirs?

~~~
stephenr
I'm having a hard time following your logic..

\- Upvotes are to indicate a comment adds to the conversation, regardless of
whether I agree with the view point expressed.

\- Down votes are to indicate that _either_ I disagree with a comment, OR that
the comment is abusive, argumentative, etc, but there is no way to specify
which of those...

???

In reply to the edit:

Some of us _do_ actively upvote greyed comments, that's hardly a reason not to
fix a system that's _broken_

~~~
DanBC
> \- Down votes are to indicate that either I disagree with a comment, OR that
> the comment is abusive, argumentative, etc, but there is no way to specify
> which of those...

Yes. (You list misses "the tiny buttons are so close that people sometimes
accidentally downvote") There are different people on HN and they use the
downvote to differently from each other to communicate different information.
I'm not sure why that concept is confusing?

It's sometimes confusing if a post is downvoted. Don't pay too much attention
to a single downvote if you can't work out why it happened. If you get two or
three downvotes you might want to look at your post to see if there's a
problem with tone or content.

~~~
stephenr
When it's "accepted behaviour" to down vote merely because you disagree with
the opinion stated, telling me "you might want to look at your post to see if
there's a problem with tone or content" is fucking insulting.

Do you seriously not see the irony in suggesting that removing dissenting
opinions merely because they are not aligned with your own, is acceptable
behaviour on a site called __Hacker News __??

For reference:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C4uTEEOJlM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C4uTEEOJlM)

~~~
DanBC
Calm down.

> Do you seriously not see the irony in suggesting that removing dissenting
> opinions merely because they are not aligned with your own, is acceptable
> behaviour on a site called Hacker News??

A single down vote does not remove a disenting opinion. Multiple downvotes,
and a lack of upvotes, remove a post. There are plenty of opinions that are
eauivalent to trollingI don't want to bother with on HN. EG I don't want to
bother telling a holocaust denier that they're wrong. I'm not going to change
their opinion and everything I say is presented better by other people
elsewhere.

This is supported multiple times in the guidelines. (Deeply interesting, not
shallow but intensely interesting.)

When you're getting multiple downvotes it's usually for tone or style or
factual inaccuracy, not because you've said something that people disagree
with.

Do you have examples of comments that were heavily downvoted that should not
have been?

~~~
bjourne
> Do you have examples of comments that were heavily downvoted that should not
> have been?

Here you go:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9409007](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9409007)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9405216](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9405216)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9399966](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9399966)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400562)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400379](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9400379)

~~~
DanBC
Two of those got a single downvote each. Those aren't great examples of
heavily downvoted comments.

The other two are clearly my poor communication about report early report
often means more visits, but that (and this is the bit I missed) thathose
visits should be benign for the vast majority of cases. I'm not sure which
comment you're linking to with the first link - you've linked to my comment
which is not downvoted; the only comment in that linked thread that is
downvoted is a semi-comprehensible rant, and they always (rightly IMO) get
downvoted.

I'm fine with those downvotes - 9 downvotes over 4 comments isn't detering me
from commenting, but is reminding me to not assume the reader will be familiar
with my argument. IE, downvotes work.

Feel free to upvote them if you feel they're unfairly downvoted.

~~~
bjourne
Those comments were all very gray when I linked to them. You are also hard to
discuss with because you are inventing reasons why those downvotes were fair
without considering the obvious reason: they were unfair.

> I'm fine with those downvotes - 9 downvotes over 4 comments isn't detering
> me from commenting, but is reminding me to not assume the reader will be
> familiar with my argument. IE, downvotes work.

Expand your mind - realize that not everyone works like you. There are people
who are deterred by downvotes. Personally, I only use downvotes on comments
which I think are crap (and your comments weren't crap, hence the downvotes
were unfair IMO) so the point, at least of _my_ downvotes, is to deter the
commentor from posting more crappy comments.

------
zamalek
> If you are downmodding out of disagreement

Regarding the _downmod:_ I completely agree with your post. Users are
generally incapable of using downmods correctly. No matter which community.
The UX of HN tends towards moderation usage of the arrow - heavily downvoted
comments get grayed out and disappear from the discussion: they have become
moderated.

Regarding the _downvote_ (disagreement): Indicating that the arrow can be used
for disagreement means that the downmod argument becomes irrelevant (ignoring
the UX concerns). The truth is: your disagreement is completely worthless if
you cannot vocalize that disagreement. Bad arguments will fall below the good
arguments by virtue of the votes the good arguments receive.

One of the greatest memes on the internet is possibly: "can someone tell me
why my comment has been downvoted?"

Either remove the arrow, only show it _after_ you have responded to a comment,
and/or make it cost 1 karma to downvote.

~~~
DanBC
> your disagreement is completely worthless if you cannot vocalize that
> disagreement.

I would far rather see pedants downvoting than leaving comments. I would far
rather see two people who dislike each other just downvote each other than
carry out a tiresome argument.

> Bad arguments will fall below the good arguments by virtue of the votes the
> good arguments receive.

A bad argument that recieves comments that are upvoted is pushed higher up the
page. Do young the top comments on an article to be someone saying something
dumb, with replies telling them why they're dumb?

~~~
zamalek
> just downvote each other than carry out a tiresome argument.

You can't currently downvote a reply.

> I would far rather see two people who dislike each other just downvote each
> other than carry out a tiresome argument.

HN seems to limit the depth you can go to within your own comment line, I'm
not sure what the exact rules are but once you reach a certain depth the reply
option disappears.

> A bad argument that recieves comments that are upvoted is pushed higher up
> the page.

Which means that those upvoted comments hold value - so, yes, I'd still like
to see them.

~~~
DanBC
> HN seems to limit the depth you can go to within your own comment line, I'm
> not sure what the exact rules are but once you reach a certain depth the
> reply option disappears.

Yes. The reply option takes longer and longer to appear as threads get deeper.
Even the software wants to prevent those people from replying to each other.

> You can't currently downvote a reply.

Ann posts something. Bob hates Ann. I would prefer it if Bob just downvotes
Ann rather than making a post. I can upvote Ann if I think she's been unfair
downvoted.

~~~
stephenr
So now, personal disagreement with another person is a valid reason to down
vote, _regardless_ of what they said?

Next on HN: down vote people who prefer a different breakfast cereal.

~~~
DanBC
> so now

Now? It's been accepted for longer than you've been a member.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)

~~~
stephenr
That comment mentions disagreement, and the context implies it means
disagreement with the comment itself.

You said:

> Bob hates Ann. I would prefer it if Bob just downvotes Ann rather than
> making a post.

How is that _not_ abuse: down voting because of _who_ the person is (Bob hates
Ann) rather than because of the comment itself.

~~~
DanBC
You're right, and I should have been more careful with my wording.

Bob hates everything that Ann says. Ann makes a post. Ideally Bob would read
it charitably and reply carefully. What sometimes happens is that Bob reads it
critically and replies harshly. I would prefer Bob to do the former, or just
ignore the post, or just downvote it and move on, (in this order) to grumpily
answering Ann.

Yes, a downvote in this example is abusive, but a simple solution exists -
upvote often.

(Btw: please do remember that I'm just one person and that very many people on
HN agree with you that downvote should only be used for low quality posts that
don't reach the threshold for flagging. You definitely are the target
audience.)

------
geofft
Downvotes for disagreement and downvotes for non-constructiveness are
sometimes hard to distinguish. At the most obvious, a comment saying justt "I
think you're wrong" clearly expresses a position that at least one person
disagrees with, but is also almost certainly non-constructive, and potentially
abusive in the form of being disrespectful. If you have arguments, make them.
If the person you're arguing with made an argument, give the phrasing of the
argument the benefit of the doubt, and engage with it as if it is a serious
argument. (And if there's no way to do that, then _their_ comment should be
downvoted, because it's non-constructive.) To do otherwise is disrespectful of
the person you're replying to, as well as to the community of people reading
comments.

A lot of times I see people making repetitive and poorly-informed comments
that also happen to be disagreeable on the merits. They're relevant, they toe
the line of "non-abusive", but they don't belong. For instance, a recent
comment thread had someone asking about whether Microsoft accepts pull
requests on GitHub. It got two replies: one person explaining that they were
aiming to, and one person saying that, of course MS would never do such a
thing. The latter comment got downvoted a fair bit. I'd imagine most of the
people downvoting disagreed on the facts, since the comment happened to be
wrong. But it also did not contribute to the discussion, since it was made out
of ignorance and assumption, and rightly got downvoted on those grounds.

~~~
DanBC
> A lot of times I see people making repetitive and poorly-informed comments
> that also happen to be disagreeable on the merits. They're relevant, they
> toe the line of "non-abusive", but they don't belong.

This is a great example of where downvotes should be used.

People should flag, not just downvote, abusive posts. Anyone can flag a post
(click the timestamp to reveal the link). This deliberate design choice by the
HN programmers leaves downvoting free for posts that are not outright abuse
but which do not add value.

------
chrisbennet
I agree. I almost never downvote. I try to read commentS that I disagree with
in a charitable fashion. It seems rather small minded to not be able to
consider views outside your own.

It would be nice to see some metrics associated with members such as their up
vote to down vote ratio. I suspect that a very few members do most of the down
voting.

------
mod
PG thinks downvoting out of disagreement is fine.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171)

~~~
stephenr
Just because one person thinks/says something, doesn't make it true.

~~~
mod
Agreed--which goes for the OP as well.

I think my point is this place is more PG's than it is OP's, and more than
that, it's unlikely this post will enact any change given the stance of PG on
the issue.

He's not involved now, but certainly his opinion still carries weight.

~~~
stephenr
Nothing ever changes if people just blindly accept the status quo.

I've yet to see _anyone_ explain how down votes can be a valid response to
__both __alternative /different ideas AND abusive/argumentative/etc comments.

~~~
maxerickson
Rules for a valid downvote: Someone clicked the button and it wasn't part of a
blatant pattern (so abuse happens when someone tries to downvote every comment
by someone else, or something like that).

Rules for a valid upvote: Someone clicked the button and it wasn't part of a
blatant pattern.

How do you know why someone voted? You read their mind. This is just as easy
for users to do as it is for the site.

Out of this horrifying ambiguity, you end up in situations where you might
disagree with a comment and consider downvoting it because of that, but end up
upvoting it because you step back from that feeling and decide that it is an
interesting contribution to the discussion. Or you might not decide and thus
not click either button.

If you think of the voting as a way to improve the ordering of the comments on
the page and not as a way of doling out punishments and rewards, the lack of a
precise specification makes more sense (because you hope a preponderance of
users want the comments to appear in an interesting order, not to click and
clack to suit their worldview).

~~~
stephenr
> If you think of the voting as a way to improve the ordering of the comments
> on the page and not as a way of doling out punishments and rewards

But we aren't just talking about changing the order of things. Down voted
comments get __hidden __

This is the entire argument - opinions and points of view that go against the
"hive mind" are regularly down voted into oblivion until _no one_ can see
them.

> the lack of a precise specification makes more sense

Sorry, but no. When moderation and user agree/disagree functionality is
mangled like this, nothing makes sense.

> (because you hope a preponderance of users want the comments to appear in an
> interesting order, not to click and clack to suit their worldview).

That's _exactly_ what happens though.

~~~
mod
Maybe an appropriate response is to stop hiding comments, then.

I personally make sure to read all of the (non-short) greyed out comments as
usually I find the perspective interesting (and wrong, but interesting).

I wouldn't care if it was flagged somehow but left entirely visible.

~~~
stephenr
Exactly my point. There is nothing wrong with indicating you disagree with
something. There is something very wrong when disagreement with an opinion
leads to the removal of that opinion.

~~~
maxerickson
There is an option in your profile "Show Dead". Turn it on. You can now see
anything that has not been directly deleted (deletion is something a user can
do to their own content for a short time, the mods mark stuff as dead instead
of deleting it).

~~~
mod
He's not talking about comments from dead users, rather the near-impossible to
read comments that have been downvoted.

~~~
maxerickson
That is not how I read _down voted into oblivion until no one can see them._

I could be wrong but "oblivion" and the emphasis on "no one" are what I am
going on.

------
avalaunch
Up/Down voting on HN and most other sites makes me think of the Yo app, where
there are simply too few choices to express what you wish to say. A simple
solution which I doubt will ever be enacted would be to increase the options
from 2 (3 if you count clicking the time stamp then flagging) to 5: useful,
not useful, agree, disagree, flag. Then those votes could be used more
intelligently to determine the best display order for comments.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Up/Down voting on HN and most other sites makes me think of the Yo app,
> where there are simply too few choices to express what you wish to say.

If you wish to say something more than up/down votes, that's what the "reply"
function is for.

~~~
avalaunch
No, the reply function is for when you have something meaningful to add. If
all you have to say is "I agree/disagree" or "your comment was useful/not
useful", the reply function is not the right function to use. But
unfortunately, the up/down functionality isn't quite right either because you
can't determine why the vote was cast.

------
angersock
Quite agreed. Suggesting that downvotes were appropriate for signalling
disagreement instead of civility is one of the few mistakes pg has made on an
otherwise excellent site.

In the meantime, though, post fearlessly, argue soundly, and hope for the
best.

------
brudgers
Any person who wants to express their "unique viewpoints" or "relevant but
controversial opinions" runs the risk of being taken for a troll. That risk
can be mitigated but not eliminated with thoughtful writing and careful
exposition supported by examples, rationales, and sound logic. If it's not
worth the risk, then I don't write it. Upon realizing what I am writing is
crap, I delete it. If I realize what I have written is crap, I delete it if
it's not to late.

And when I've decided to risk it, I live with the downvotes. I don't expect
everyone to be as brilliant as I like to imagine myself to be...including
myself. Write good comments and downvotes aren't much of an issue.

~~~
bjourne
That's the whole point! I don't give a flying fuck if my comments are
downvoted to -inf. I have enough useless internet points as it is. However,
when people like you moderates _your_ comments and sees it as a risk whether
to post it or not, then that reduces the amount of good comments on hn making
_my_ hacker news reading experience _worse_.

Now I just glanced through your comment history, but you don't appear to be an
asshole, troll or write inflammatory stuff so if your comments are frequently
getting downvoted then downvote-to-disagree has gotten out of hand. IMHO

~~~
DanBC
> Now I just glanced through your comment history, but you don't appear to be
> an asshole, troll or write inflammatory stuff so if your comments are
> frequently getting downvoted then downvote-to-disagree has gotten out of
> hand. IMHO

Parent poster talks about how downvoting makes them carefully with wording.
You read their post history and say that they appear to write good posts.

Downvoting works, even for people who are not downvoted?

~~~
bjourne
No, parent poster talks about how downvoting makes them careful with _what
they comment on_ : "If it's not worth the risk, then I don't write it." From
personal experience I can say (and you can too, I bet) there is a much
stronger correlation between downvotes and disagreement than between downvotes
and not being eloquent enough.

~~~
bjourne
Ironically that this comment was downvoted too without being rude or "bad". So
I don't win the karma race but I damn sure is proven right.

~~~
brudgers
The comment deliberately mischaracterized my words for rhetorical effect.

------
adamnemecek
internet: srs bsns

~~~
mg1982
Don't agree; downvoted.

