
The Value of Downvoting, or, How Hacker News Gets It Wrong (2009) - xkxx
https://stackoverflow.blog/2009/03/the-value-of-downvoting-or-how-hacker-news-gets-it-wrong/
======
reddytowns
One idea I had was to be able to see who downvoted a post and be able to list
of the last 50 or so posts a particular user has downvoted. Thus would
hopefully shame users who downvote for reasons other then to keep the
conversation constructive.

You could even allow downvoting of the downvote, so users could lose karma for
downloading an insightful post that they simply disagreed with.

Of course, if you allowed downvoting the downvote of a downvote, and so on
recursively, you could have downvote wars between two users, where they both
drain each other's karma down to zero. I don't see much problem with this,
because anyone willing to participate in such a battle seems childish enough
that they deserve what they get.

~~~
notacoward
The best variant of this idea that I've seen is - believe it or not -
Slashdot. The key aspect of their system is that _you don 't get to choose_
which actions or users to metamoderate. You just get a random set, which
breaks the endless downvote cycle you mention.

I don't think "they deserve what they get" is sufficient, because bilateral
symmetric conflict is not the only scenario. It's easy enough for an
ideologically aligned group to hammer an outspoken invididual with metavotes,
just as they already do with votes. This can happen with or without explicit
coordination, and carries almost no cost/risk for each individual in the lynch
mob. There's also the scenario of a karma-rich individual continuing to reap
the dividend of the "rich get richer" phenomenon common to all social networks
(which this is, whether or not denizens like to admit it). Such a person can
afford to spew out hundreds of undeserved downvotes a week. I've been targeted
that way here many times, and I'll bet you have too. What SO prescribes is
already one of the worst things about HN. Making it easier for those petty
individuals to identify targets, and more ways to harass them, scarcely seems
like it would help.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that the /. system is ideal. Their meta/moderation
system has its flaws, as do other aspects of the site. I'm just saying that
the _random_ element specifically seems to avoid a lot of pathologies that are
common to most such systems.

~~~
reddytowns
> ... and carries almost no cost/risk for each individual in the lynch mob.

I see a big cost if the person downvoted can downvote those of the lynch mob.
Sure, the lynch mob could downvote the downvote of the victim but I don't see
that potential vicious cycle being a winning strategy for suppressing an
unliked idea.

Wrt the karma rich individual. This change wouldn't help the "rich get richer"
because it only opens up the algorithm for additional _downvotes_. Therefore,
the only result that could occur would be everyone, including the rich, having
a zero effect on their karma, or a lessening of it.

Wrt slashdot, personally, I could never stand meta-moderating. It's so boring
to read random comments about a topic that you are not interested in. Maybe
it's different for you, but I'd like to know how popular meta-moderation is.

Also, the results speak for themselves. Slashdot has gone down in quality a
lot over the years, the signal to noise ratio is currently very low. I hardly
ever browse the comment section there, anymore. Maybe for you this is
different?

~~~
notacoward
> I see a big cost if the person downvoted can downvote those of the lynch
> mob.

When it's many to one, each member of the mob only has to absorb 1/N of the
target's downvotes. For large N, the target will be exhausted before any of
their attackers feel a thing.

> I don't see that potential vicious cycle being a winning strategy for
> suppressing an unliked idea.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not real.

> This change wouldn't help the "rich get richer"

That's not the point. The rich _already_ get richer, because people with high
reputation get more attention and therefore more new reputation. Thus, they
have a steady inflow of new karma that they can burn on a whim without any
real consequence. Even I, at my medium karma level, do this sometimes. I'll
post a comment that I know will attract a few downvotes, because maybe some of
the less ideologically-rigid folks here will appreciate it and I'll make up
the difference on the next comment. Many of the highest-karma people here
_constantly_ do that to behave in far more egregious ways. What your proposal
does is just give the bullies a new weapon.

> Also, the results speak for themselves. Slashdot has gone down in quality

Have you considered the possibility of there being other factors at play? Yes,
Slashdot has gone downhill, but I think it would have gone downhill even
faster with HN's system, and faster still with your proposal.

~~~
reddytowns
> When it's many to one, each member of the mob only has to absorb 1/N of the
> target's downvotes. For large N, the target will be exhausted before any of
> their attackers feel a thing.

They can do mob-downvotes today, only they don't get punished at all. This
would be an improvement.

If a mob wanted to hurt only one target, your model makes sense. But a mob
with an agenda would need to downvote hundreds of posts, at least, to make a
significant impact. So having their karma drained while they do so would be a
dissuading factor.

> What your proposal does is just give the bullies a new weapon.

It also gives people a chance to defend themselves. Right now, bullies can not
only get away with their tactics with no fear of retribution, but they can
also do so anonymously. This new system at least gives the victims a chance to
"punch the bully in the nose", regardless of whether that means even a harder
beating or not.

Also, that you could then "name and shame" even the most karma rich
individuals as bullies, by directing people to their profile and "unfair"
downvotes, this is another way of fighting back against them.

When you weigh that against a bully being able to simply add another negative
point, and only if the victim has decided to fight back against the bully (by
downvoting their downvote), it seems like a win in my opinion.

> Yes, Slashdot has gone downhill, but I think it would have gone downhill
> even faster with HN's system, and faster still with your proposal.

I disagree, but anyway bringing up Slashdot when you admit that its quality is
subpar is not evidence that its system is a more ideal model.

------
rabbyte
In both cases you have the same data loss problem. Without downvotes you can't
separate uninteresting from harmful and with downvotes you can't separate
harmful from low quality which is why voting etiquette is recommended:

> If someone spends the time to make an honest effort to answer a question,
> but it's not that great an answer, just don't upvote them

That means voting etiquette is part of the vote mechanic itself; a critical
piece that makes the technology work rests in the minds of its users. If
you've spent any time on Reddit, it's obvious this is a common source for
trouble as a person seeing an up/down binary will naturally think this is just
a personal value assessment. This is amplified by the fact downvoting has
actual effects, lowering the visibility of a contribution encourages downvotes
to hide content the user thought was poor quality.

This is why FB reactions happened. A mechanism intended to reduce noise has to
guard against data loss to some degree or the mechanism itself produces noise,
as it is with lossy audio formats.

~~~
xkxx
There's an interesting solution: showing upvote and downvote counters
separately. I would much more enjoy to read somebody who has plenty of upvotes
and a good share of downvotes than somebody who has mostly only upvotes. I'd
suspect the latter to be a karma hoarder who tries not to post anything that
any big part of a community disagree with.

------
grzm
For reference, previously on HN:

\- 1 year ago, 36 comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10875619](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10875619)

\- 8 years ago, 114 comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=507948](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=507948)

------
k__
HN should just get bigger hide buttons and rely on comment count instead of
voting.

I could clean up the front page much faster and still see which articles are
interesting.

------
hoodoof
I hate StackOverflow's downvoting with the heat of a trillion simultaneous
supernovas all going off at the same time. It's a blunt instrument applied
thoughtlessly and indiscriminately.

Strange strange strange to hear StackOverflow lecturing others on the value of
downvoting.

~~~
xkxx
Can you elaborate on this? Your respone seems very emotional, but you don't
provide any facts.

In my experience with SO, if an answer has a score below zero, it's because
the answer is either irrelevant or wrong. And I do sometimes take time to read
all the answers to a question trying not to judge them based on their score.

