
Ask HN: Reverse asymmetry to combat dismissive comments on HN? - oskarth
<i>Dismissive comments about new things bother me partly because there&#x27;s an asymmetry that seems unfair. It&#x27;s so risky to create something new, and so easy to dismiss it. At their worst, the people making such comments are like schoolyard bullies picking on someone who tries to do something different.</i> -- pg (https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=5364566)<p>It seems to me that people who have put made something on their own, put themselves out there, are less dismissive in comments. That would partly explain why HN in its first year was less mean - the people participating were more likely to be makers and founders rather than trolls and armchair opinionators.<p>Would it be possible to create a sort of reverse asymmetry, a soft filter, where people have to show &quot;proof of work&quot; in order to have their comments count or rank higher?<p>The point isn&#x27;t to create a kind of expert stamp, but more about showcasing experience and empathy with the creative and difficult aspects of making something new.<p>What are your thoughts, HN? Is something like this possible? Is it desirable?
======
bushido
_> Is it desirable?_

No.

 _> Is something like this possible?_

Maybe.

 _> where people have to show "proof of work" in order to have their comments
count or rank higher?_

This would be counter-productive. You're asking whether its a good idea to
remove a persons choice to choose what opinion they should believe in.

It's true that it's easier to criticize an idea when you are not personally
involved, but to reduce any thoughts you don't agree with to "trolls and
armchair opinionators" is incorrect.

There is simply no way to determine if the person giving advise is an expert
in that domain, its one of the advantages of anonymity.

Furthermore, anonymity allows one to step out of the situation and see the
bigger picture. For example if a founder was doing something that in an
extreme situation could expose users to unforeseeable risks (unforeseeable for
the founder), which often happens in the hopes of huge monetary gains.

Also, we already have an option to up/down vote, and if someone says something
that is too extreme, not-credible or troll-like we the HN users can vote it
down into oblivion.

No reason to deliberately promote cognitive dissonance.

~~~
reeses
What do you want this site to be?

Is the site you want one that is supportive of new ventures?

Straw men aside, civil and humane responses will encourage more of the great
"look what I'm building," posts and culture that many people miss from the old
HN.

There's so much thoughtless "no one wants that" type feedback that could be
put into more constructive advice or elicitation of marketability.

~~~
bushido
_> Is the site you want one that is supportive of new ventures?_

How does one say no to that?

But, step back and consider this. Is support for the heck of support really
supportive?

Additionally, I believe the tech community, is the single largest group of
evangelists that have benefited the world in the last decade or two. They are
also the usual intended users for most of these ventures, and their adoption
could make or break most new products. Often, posters of these alleged
ventures do not want to listen to users, wherein the problem arises.

Quote for this discussion would be: "The day we stop criticizing, will be the
day we stop caring."

Most criticism is intended to be positive, most people also don't know how to
criticize, those who know how to criticize positively also falter in some
situations.

There are of course trolls too, would you really sacrifice everyone else for
them?

edit: spelling

------
pvnick
I second this, if not this specific solution then at least the goal of being
proactive about the problem. There are so many talented people that want to
make cool stuff and improve the world around them in their own way, but the
overall negativity here has become so overwhelming it's crazy. Especially in
Show HN threads (the myth.io thread the other day was embarassing). It teaches
creators and innovators that they're not welcome here. That we reject them and
their hard work. Sooner or later there won't be any of them left. It'll just
be a bunch of idiots clamoring over each other to determine who's the
smartest.

It's like the old expression, _Those who can, do. Those who can 't just sit
around and bitch about those who can_

Edit: Great, flagged off the front page. Way to go guys!

~~~
sparkie
Aside from obvious trolls, I can't see where this alleged negativity is on HN.
People are critical, but criticism is necessary for debate, improvement, and
freethought. Everybody should be free to express their thoughts, as long as
they're well meant and not obvious, unreasonable attacks. When we start
considering censoring people who disagree with us, we're only inflicting
cognitive biases upon ourselves. We resort to groupthink, people thinking one
thing but expressing another in order to prevent discord.

And I don't see how this environment is unfriendly to creators. If anything,
people giving honest opinions about something without fear of reprisal from
their peers gives the creator the tools to reflect upon their own judgements.
Without it, they could be digging themselves into deeper holes with
confirmation bias. If anything, it presents a creator with a good opportunity
to retort misconceptions about their creation by replying to those critical
comments.

There are of course, creators who use HN for marketing their products, and
marketing is often dishonest or not completely honest. It should be expected
that when pitching a product to a technically competent crowd, you should cut
the bullshit and let the product speak for itself. It's my hope that marketers
should only be welcome here if they're honest, and having freedom of
expression in comments gives us the opportunity to make judgements without
investigating everything ourselves. It's "Hacker News", not "Startup News".
I'm glad it's not Techcrunch.

The main reason I visit and comment on here is because it's nice to see
variety of opinion from mostly open-minded and intelligent people. I can
ignore the comments I dislike or disagree with. I don't care whether or not
people agree with what I say either, because they can make their own
judgements. I'm sure creators can learn to do the same. Sieve through the
bullshit, but don't succumb to reactance when their ideas are judged.

------
sharemywin
I think the reason most large corporations fail is because they turn into
self-diluted echo chambers. So, what if the neg comments came from a high
profile blogger, you going to close up shop? Most of the time when I post I
get nothing, silence is way worst than "I don't get your idea". I'm not saying
trolls are good, but if your doing some kind of market research you need more
bad feedback than good. so you can fix things.

------
krapp
I believe the premise (that provable "work" by posters is a sign of sincerity
or, inversely, lack of provable work is an indication of being a troll) is
falsifiable enough that it renders an engineered solution impossible.

HN already has a karma score, and users can post their credentials, etc. in
their profile - isn't this essentially already "proof of work?" in the sense
OP describes? And yet, despite features already being in place which attempt
to reinforce positive and constructive, there's nothing at all stopping high-
karma posters with credentials from dismissing or criticizing anything they
like. The asymmetry that pg describes hasn't been stopped because it can't be
stopped. It can be policed, but not predetermined.

A better solution, I think, is to be more positive and to encourage people to
put more thought into their comments.

Edit: I suppose this is a somewhat dismissive comment. What "proof of work"
would I have needed here for my opinion to be credible? I've got a github
account and i've been paid for code but I still think this is an intractable
idea.

------
codex
I think that many comments are negative because most new things fail--
especially in software and the Internet, where only the best survive. Is it
doing anyone a service to pretend otherwise?

