
Observations on what's getting downvoted, with some dissected specimens - co_pl_te
http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/10/observations-on-whats-getting-downvoted-with-some-dissected-specimens/
======
Stratoscope
I'm closing in on that magical 500 karma number where I hear that I'll start
to see downvote buttons. I'm almost hoping there is a way I can opt out of
this and not have those buttons appear.

Why? The ridiculous system here that gives you one shot at hitting the right
button with no chance to correct your mistake. I've seen too many comments
saying, "Sorry, I was trying to upvote your comment and fat-fingered the
downvote button by mistake." I often read HN on my phone or a tablet and it
will be all too easy for me to do that.

Reddit, for all its flaws, gets this right. If you tap the wrong button or
change your mind, perhaps after realizing that you misunderstood something,
you can fix it.

~~~
jiggy2011
I have experienced the same problem myself. An even simpler (partial) fix
would be to just move the buttons further away from each other. They are so
close at the moment that hitting the right one on a touch device is basically
pure luck. You could also use JS to add an "are you sure?" popup upon hitting
downvote.

OTOH HN actually has a fair number of usability issues, though it doesn't seem
like there is much interest in fixing them (I'm sure PG has plenty of other
things to do). I think this might be partly because this board is written in
some form of LISP so less people will be comfortable tweaking the source.

Would it be heresy to suggest a re-implementation in something like rails, or
_gasp_ even PHP?

------
snowwrestler
The best moderation I've experienced is here on HN, and on Slashdot. I think
this is for two reasons:

1\. The cultures of the communities are largely technical, which is a culture
that tends to care more about accuracy and truth, rather than just how closely
a comment hews to personal opinions. It's okay to disagree if you present
reasonably worthwhile support in the post.

2\. The structure of the communities only allows highly valued members to down
vote. On Slashdot all moderation (up or down) is controlled by the karma
system, and metamoderation "watches the watchers". Here on HN, you must have
quite a bit of karma (I think ~500 these days) before you can down vote.

Compare to Reddit, which in most subreddits probably the worst quality
moderation I've ever seen in a community. Unpopular truths are downvoted to
oblivion, and lies rise to the top if they validate popularly held beliefs.
The only exception that comes to mind is /r/askscience, which sets a very high
bar to comment at all--all answers must be presented by proven experts or
contain references to scientific publications.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>The cultures of the communities are largely technical, which is a culture
that tends to care more about accuracy and truth, rather than just how closely
a comment hews to personal opinions.

I think you're greatly exaggerating the tendency of technical people to value
accuracy and truth over personal opinions. In my experience, people who are
technical also tend to have _very_ strong opinions about everything,
especially if the subject is technical in nature.

>>The structure of the communities only allows highly valued members to down
vote... Here on HN, you must have quite a bit of karma (I think ~500 these
days) before you can down vote.

500 karma is really easy to accumulate. All one has to do is conform with
popular opinion, and for an active poster it would take a month or so. I was
under 500 karma recently, and I kept thinking to myself how much easier it
would have been if I had posted in threads about controversial topics and just
agreed with everyone. If I had sided with Samsung for example, and spouted the
popular (but wrong) opinion that the decision hurts innovation.

~~~
tensor
_I think you're greatly exaggerating the tendency of technical people to value
accuracy and truth over personal opinions._

...

* If I had sided with Samsung for example, and spouted the popular (but wrong) opinion that the decision hurts innovation.*

Irony.

That aside, voting systems by design favor majority opinion. From the few
stories that discuss it, the behind the scenes moderation that goes on here is
likely the differentiating factor in comment quality from sites like reddit.
The ability to down vote only after participating in the community for a while
is just one of many heuristics for moderating the community.

~~~
eru
> That aside, voting systems by design favor majority opinion.

It's more complicated than that. Different voting systems lead to different
outcomes, even with the same voters. Just compare discussions on here or
reddit with answers on stackexchange.

Though of course, you might chalk that up under the heading of moderation.

------
raganwald
What I find interesting about this post above and beyond its content, is the
signal it sends from moderators to the community. We have guidelines, but a
post like this from time to time might help reinforce them.

------
tsycho
So if I comment that the behavior on Ars is surprisingly similar to HN, I
should receive up votes from people who had the same thought, and down votes
from those who think that's obvious and doesn't add to any new insight?

~~~
enraged_camel
I think the behavior is the same on every site that has upvoting and
downvoting functionality.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Nooooo. The community matters a lot. The way a conversation will shake out on
HN or stackexchange or reddit (all of which have up and down voting) will be
hugely different. Indeed, on reddit the particular sub-reddit that a thread is
in will make a huge difference in voting patterns and comment behavior.

------
jandrewrogers
I don't even use downvote buttons. They are the worst idea ever and anyone who
uses them is an utterly insecure moron who downvotes to make themselves feel
superior. This is one in a long line of downvoting articles on HN that are not
even worth the time to click the link.

(EDIT: Apparently some commenters on my post did not read the article. Meta-
trolling FTW.)

(I intend to harness the inevitable downvote singularity as a new form of
clean energy.)

~~~
cheald
I think you may be ignoring the community moderation effect of downvotes. Try
turning "show dead" on and see if your opinion changes. There is a surprising
amount of spam, abuse, and downright awful content that is moderated through
the downvotes. It's easy to decry the function as useless when its prime
effect is invisible to you.

In a community like HN, I think it has a secondary value, as well, in that it
provides well-intentioned posters with feedback that they are making a weak
point, or doing it in a way that is not contributory to the community. There
is (or was) a standard of discourse on HN that down votes help to reinforce by
communicating to people that they need to improve their communication. Lack of
positive signals is not the same thing as negative signals.

It certainly is abused by insecure morons, but I think it's a bit narrow to
decry it as useless because it can be misused.

~~~
atirip
"In a community like HN, I think it has a secondary value, as well, in that it
provides well-intentioned posters with feedback that they are making a weak
point, or doing it in a way that is not contributory to the community."

Dream on. Whenever I try to troll a bit (or let's say be flamboyant) I get
upvotes. Sometimes massively. Whenever I present "unpopular but sincere
opinion" I get downvoted, usually massively.

~~~
enraged_camel
Exactly. There is a huge gap between how the system was designed to work and
how it actually works.

What upvoting is supposed to be: "Good post that adds a lot to the
discussion." What it really is: "I agree with this guy."

What downvoting is supposed to be: "Person is spamming, making a weak point or
arguing in an inflammatory manner." What it really is: "You're wrong shut the
hell up."

This problem could be fixed if people were forced to give a reason for their
upvotes and downvotes. Imagine if every time you click upvote, a small textbox
appears that has a list of predefined options, such as "valid point" or "good
contribution" or "i learned something". Similarly, every time you click
downvote, it automatically takes you to the Reply page; if you don't reply,
your downvote does not go through.

This kind of transparency would encourage people to be more thoughtful when
they cast their votes.

~~~
schme
I recall reading somewhere (from HN) that upvoting as an agreement was
allowed. Can't find the source though..

