I can't read minds, so if someone is technically wrong (or wrong in my
opinion), I will never down-vote them. My reason is simple; they might
be entirely sincere and believe they're contributing even though they're
unknowingly wrong and unfortunately spreading misinformation. If I have
better information, I post it, politely, and with references if at all
possible. If it's a matter of differing opinions (not facts), then it's
best to just quietly let it slide. I didn't come here for an argument,
or lessons in getting hit over the head (sorry for the Monte Python
reference).
Additionally, I don't need to agree with someone to appreciate the time
they took to share and post their views. Even if I never agree with
them, I benefit from knowing how the other side(s) sees things.
If someone is being rude or intentionally insulting, that's good for at
least a down-vote, and possibly a flag if it's egregious.
Both flagging too much, and down-voting too much does have effects on
your account. The precise mechanics including the value of "too much"
have never been made public. I can't prove this in code that's actually
running on HN (no public), but there's an ancient post by pg that
mentions it. I could probably dig it up from my notes if anyone needs
further confirmation... But, who's to say pg hasn't changed things in
the years between that old post and now?
It makes sense that there's a price to pay for abusive flagging and
down-voting. If you spend a lot of time on the 'new' page (/newest
queue) and flag the spam as it happens, you could very well trip the
abusive flagging threshold. On the other hand, if you do trip the
threshold, and pg/mods see that you're actually trying to help out with
the spam, they'll be thankful rather than upset.
Some down-votes are entirely unintentional. The voting UI/UX has issues
in mobile environments where small screens and large fingers result in
miscast votes. It wasn't so long ago that I saw Joey Flores (YC funded -
earbits.com) apologize to pg for accidentally down-voting him, so it
indeed happens to the very best of HN users.
As you might expect, the result of miscast votes is some voting patterns
you see are actually somewhat random. Adding to the randomness are
language barriers causing misinterpretations. Also adding to the
randomness are quickly written and poorly communicated comments. Even
when you mean well, others might not understand what you wrote.
Off the top of my head, I think it was you (001sky) who recently replied
to one of my posts, and I didn't really understand your comment... Yep,
it was you:
Maybe it's written perfectly and I'm the sole cause of my failure to
understand? ;-) But anyhow, the point is, miscommunication happens
constantly and it is one of the causes of down-votes.
My ability to type comes and goes due to my health, so I don't post or
contribute very much. When I do post, I rarely get down-voted. I might
get one down-vote in fifty posts or so. I do keep a very close eye on
the score of my posts, and if I notice a down-vote, I'll dig in my
comments to see where it occurred. Since I know about the randomness
problems in voting patterns, I never take a down-vote personally. For
all I know, it could have been an intended up-vote that went wrong, or
someone in the habit of down-voting for mere disagreement of opinions.
Even if someone down-votes me out of mere disagreement, it's still
useful feedback.
The best practice for debates on matters of contention is simple; be
certain to give the other person both polite respect and the benefit of
the doubt on their intentions. Some people will still react in rude
and insulting ways if you politely pose a tough question, or dare to
offer an opposing view to their imaginary authority.
It's just one of the risks to open forums. Some people think being rude
and insulting (i.e. "mean" in pg-speak) will somehow make their point
more convincing and help them "win" --whatever that means. It's very
unfortunate, but it's just part of life when interacting with others.
Thanks, this is a great post. I appreciate your taking the time to comment here. It was recently reading another Ask HN post, and one of your comments inspired me to post here:
<From: Ask HN: What is the consensus on Hacker News?>
A large part of the supposed "sentiments" show in comments, submissions, and voting/flagging are really just playing to the crowd. Though it might be offensive to some, the typical phrase is "karma whoring." It's really just human nature at work; if you buy or buy into some expensive widget, you promote your choice publicly to gather the esteem of your peers. Similarly, if you abandon something, you disparage it publicly to promote your choice and gather the esteem of your peers.[1]
Having just clocked over 500 myself, I thought it would be a good time to reflect on this subject more specifically.
From my personal perspective, I've seen things a bit all over the place. I've seen some things that are on point, some that are off. Some things driven by subject matter, others broadly by the form of expression. In one or two cases, people may actually write a note with explantion. I actually apprecitate that, but there's a reason we probably don't see more of it.
The information and inference aspect -- ie, if this is feedback how to measure it and repsond -- was recently highlighted for me. I made a post with a subtle but salient observation (including quotation from the article, etc.) on the nature of science. That received half a dozen or so +1s. An couple of ours later, the net +1 was as per original post. Which led me to think: Hmm, if I did not just see this go up +6 I would not have seen it go -5 to +1. I wonder how many other posts have such latent information in them? So, this thought has been sitting in my head since, I'm not sure if it has crossed the paths of others as well. In this particular case, as in others, I think there was an element of something like this:
If A then B......If B is true it might signal weakness in C
So, people who support C for whatever reason go ballistic.
Unfortunately, the logic of these attacks is usually a mess.
Somewhat Ironically, I've seen this happen with C once being the concept of Decorum. Actually, more than once. And again, this was something I thought it useful to note and put aside, but ultimate to ask here to the larger group.
Personally, I appreciate people guiding via comments when someone is off topic or out of order. I think it shows a bit of leadership and of course the person is taking a risk of catching some flak. It sets a tone for keeping the cruft light. Which allows people to follow and hopefully develop the argument, rather than have it digress into a spiral of minutae.
By the same token, It is also useful to see orthogonal comments occasionally. A pointed, counterintuitive thought. Or counter-example. Etc. The edge-case here is the use of Irony. It arguably does not translate over the internet. Is somewhat exclusionary to people not well versed in its particulars. And it is arguably counterthetical to certain forms of logic. But it is information efficient.
This leads to another point you make, which i think is worthwile to highlight: Not every HN reader is a native english speaker. I think this is a very valid point to always keep in mind.
In the quest for information efficiency, I try too keep most posts short (cue: Irony alert). The old saying "sorry I wrote such a long letter, I didn't have time to write a shorter one" comes to mind. But condensing information can make it inpenetrable and lead to mis-understandings and ultimately more side-bar discussions, etc.
Which brings me to one last point: I looked at the comment I made that you referenced, and yes that was arguably inpenetrable. The Tl;dr - I was agreeing with you.
The research being done is fascinating. It roughly explains why some
people go ballistic when something is said against something they
unknowingly "love" even if it's just a device, technology, or company.
Secondly, if you've studied linguistics at all or know multiple
languages, you'll notice how human languages have significant variance
in their dependency on context. For example, in a "high context"
language like Vietnamese (one of the very highest), things are more
often implied rather than expressed. In a "low context" like English
(particularly American usage of English), things are more often
expressed rather than implied.
In English, the use of irony, satire, and sarcasm are unexpected "high
context" usage of a generally "low context" language. Without being a
native speaker, the intentionally subtle but surprising switch from low
context to high context results in endless amounts of confusion and
miscommunication. A great example would be the recent "Porn Star
Brogrammer" post. If you didn't recognize it as satire, it would be
highly offensive, but even if you did recognize it as satire, many would
still consider it offensive. A lot of satire is still offensive even
if you do understand the context shift and recognize it for what it is.
Lastly, in English the term "argument" (outside of formal logic) implies
disagreement, and often, harsh disagreement or even a fight. If you use
the term "argument" in the sense of formal logic, it's best to qualify
it to prevent misunderstanding.
And yes, a lot of people post on HN for the sake of having a fight,
rather than to have a pleasant and mutually beneficial exchange of
ideas. The smart thing to do when you see heated exchanges or harsh
replies, is to just stay out of it. You have better things to do than
fight with people on the Internet.
If you find someone reacting badly, ignore it. If it still bothers you,
give it a few days or a few weeks to cool off, and then bring it up with
them again politely, and possibly privately. At times, miscommunication
just happen in spite of our best efforts and intents, but trying to
fix it while people are still hot or angry usually makes matters worse.
I can't read minds, so if someone is technically wrong (or wrong in my opinion), I will never down-vote them. My reason is simple; they might be entirely sincere and believe they're contributing even though they're unknowingly wrong and unfortunately spreading misinformation. If I have better information, I post it, politely, and with references if at all possible. If it's a matter of differing opinions (not facts), then it's best to just quietly let it slide. I didn't come here for an argument, or lessons in getting hit over the head (sorry for the Monte Python reference).
Additionally, I don't need to agree with someone to appreciate the time they took to share and post their views. Even if I never agree with them, I benefit from knowing how the other side(s) sees things.
If someone is being rude or intentionally insulting, that's good for at least a down-vote, and possibly a flag if it's egregious.
Both flagging too much, and down-voting too much does have effects on your account. The precise mechanics including the value of "too much" have never been made public. I can't prove this in code that's actually running on HN (no public), but there's an ancient post by pg that mentions it. I could probably dig it up from my notes if anyone needs further confirmation... But, who's to say pg hasn't changed things in the years between that old post and now?
It makes sense that there's a price to pay for abusive flagging and down-voting. If you spend a lot of time on the 'new' page (/newest queue) and flag the spam as it happens, you could very well trip the abusive flagging threshold. On the other hand, if you do trip the threshold, and pg/mods see that you're actually trying to help out with the spam, they'll be thankful rather than upset.
Some down-votes are entirely unintentional. The voting UI/UX has issues in mobile environments where small screens and large fingers result in miscast votes. It wasn't so long ago that I saw Joey Flores (YC funded - earbits.com) apologize to pg for accidentally down-voting him, so it indeed happens to the very best of HN users.
As you might expect, the result of miscast votes is some voting patterns you see are actually somewhat random. Adding to the randomness are language barriers causing misinterpretations. Also adding to the randomness are quickly written and poorly communicated comments. Even when you mean well, others might not understand what you wrote.
Off the top of my head, I think it was you (001sky) who recently replied to one of my posts, and I didn't really understand your comment... Yep, it was you:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4493615
Maybe it's written perfectly and I'm the sole cause of my failure to understand? ;-) But anyhow, the point is, miscommunication happens constantly and it is one of the causes of down-votes.
My ability to type comes and goes due to my health, so I don't post or contribute very much. When I do post, I rarely get down-voted. I might get one down-vote in fifty posts or so. I do keep a very close eye on the score of my posts, and if I notice a down-vote, I'll dig in my comments to see where it occurred. Since I know about the randomness problems in voting patterns, I never take a down-vote personally. For all I know, it could have been an intended up-vote that went wrong, or someone in the habit of down-voting for mere disagreement of opinions.
Even if someone down-votes me out of mere disagreement, it's still useful feedback.
The best practice for debates on matters of contention is simple; be certain to give the other person both polite respect and the benefit of the doubt on their intentions. Some people will still react in rude and insulting ways if you politely pose a tough question, or dare to offer an opposing view to their imaginary authority.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4489017
It's just one of the risks to open forums. Some people think being rude and insulting (i.e. "mean" in pg-speak) will somehow make their point more convincing and help them "win" --whatever that means. It's very unfortunate, but it's just part of life when interacting with others.