I'm rather curious why this depiction is considered to be that of the prophet Muhammad. Is it said so somewhere in their paper, or do we all just accept whatever interpretation is handed down to us by the fundamentalists?
Thank you for the upvote. If the downvotes were due to religious reasons, then I have to admit it is rather sad to see them on HN. On the other hand, if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them.
From the link and history of the cartoons, I've reached the rather odd conclusion that anyone named "Mahomet" or "Muhammad" in a cartoon is automatically assumed to be the prophet Muhammad.
>if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them
You were just asking an earnest question. What's actually stupid is the downvote feature itself. Upvotes can help promote good content and flags can call attention to inappropriate or problematic content. Likewise, comments can be used to express disagreement.
So, what's the purpose of downvotes? Are we in preschool?
If users should be trusted to push comments up, then why not down also? A down vote doesn't have to mean "this comment should not be on HN", it can be "I disagree with this comment" or "I think this comment should be lower down".
You actually get two downvotes: if you think a comment should be lower down you can (but shouldn't) upvote all the other comments and downvote the one you think should be lower.
Good point - and I think while you're right in saying "but you shouldn't" there are exceptions. I've done this a couple of times, only if two users made the exact same point, one a while before another. Maybe you'd argue I shouldn't have upvoted one and downvoted another as unfair karma wise to the later poster, but my decision to do so was based on improving where the comments are positioned (readers don't need to see the same view twice high up), not based on rewarding or punishing users.
Users do push comments down by pushing others up. If we are trying to surface interesting content, then what more do we need?
And, why should your simple personal disagreement result in a comment being pushed down unless what we want is groupthink instead of earnest discussion?
The proper thing to do, if one cares enough to express disagreement, is to explain why he/she disagrees.
Then, there's the fact that downvotes negate one's "karma score", as if to say, "I disagree. I will take one of your gold-star stickers".
It's really stupid and juvenile. But, I hope you will continue downvoting me here. The irony is just too delicious.
I can't down vote this particular comment of yours as it is a reply to me, but wouldn't if I could. But I've no problem if others wish to. Or if they want to up vote you, also fine by me.
Other than caring about other users' scores, which I don't, I see no reason a user's view of "this comment is too high" is any less valid than the opposite.
And bringing in the concept of "groupthink".. Surely showing us the up vote has the exact same affect in that regard?
>And bringing in the concept of "groupthink".. Surely showing us the up vote has the exact same affect in that regard?
It's not the same. Firstly, and most obviously, upvotes cannot lead to a comment being grayed out or barely legible and, thus, overlooked.
Secondly, for those who do actually care about Magic Karma Beans for some reason, venturing from the herd runs the risk of earning downvotes, since they are used to express mere disagreement. If there was no risk of that "loss", then those people would be more willing to take a chance on expressing alternative or unpopular views.
So, there's a downside to differing with the group sentiment and downvotes explicitly encourage people to post more when their views are in alignment with the group.
Fair point, but I'd suggest if you dislike the system it would be better to change how downvoted comments are formatted rather than prevent downvoting. The minimum karma requirement already slightly limits downvoting, perhaps it should more?
To users worried about losing karma I say... grow up. I might be worried about people thinking me stupid, or something else about me, but not the number at the top right.
And overall I think allowing downvotes is better than not. But this is subjective, neither of us has to be right or wrong. If you feel really strongly you could drop a mail to hn@ycombinator.com and give them reasoned argument and maybe some day they'll change more towards you're liking. I feel strongly enough to use time discussing with you, but not enough to contact HN if downvotes were disabled, personally.
>To users worried about losing karma I say... grow up.
So, you agree with me, in part, that downvoting is childish. Because downvotes are obviously a big part of that number at the top right, and the very notion that commenters would be "punished" and lose a gold-star sticker over a comment (vs. just submerging the comment) is what I find most childish.
So, perhaps I should be more nuanced: Downvotes are childish primarily when it comes to the karma score; whereas they are more ineffectual and promote groupthink when it comes to actual discussion.
So, actually, it looks like we are somewhat in agrement on both fronts.
But, like you, I don't think I actually care enough to send an email, nor do I thik it would matter if I did.
I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction, less than a flag. Not every comment here is gold to be honest. They don't need to be eliminated but they should be grey as a signal to new readers. At least that is how I view the ones I receive.
As has been pointed out by many sometimes it is hard to figure out why you have been downvoted. I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote.
Also I have a feeling some people who definitely don't understand HN culture has got downvote privilege over the last 6-18 months. But I don't have data for that. Comment before downvote would expose those.
> I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote.
I'm not sure there is much to be gained from that, but if explanation is viewed as necessary I'd prefer a comment attached to the downvote that is hidden from the main discussion but visible on a link from the title line of the downvoted comment (with a link title like "5 downvotes"), so that downvotes don't increase the screen real-estate associated with the downvoted comment and its associated subthread in "normal" view, but the rationale for any downvotes is kept.
I think requiring normal comments associated with downvotes, and thus increasing the prominence of downvoted comments, is directly contrary to the whole purpose of community moderation.
But, in any case, I don't really see a problem with the impact of downvotes under the current system that warrants the increase in downvoting cost that requiring comment would involve.
> Also I have a feeling some people who definitely don't understand HN culture has got downvote privilege over the last 6-18 months.
I think the culture is continuously evolving (both from the ground up and from the admin side), but I don't see anything particularly surprising recently. I occasionally see a few downvotes that seem unwarranted -- either on my own comments or others where that's evident by graying -- but they tend to get neutralized by upvotes over a little time, and that's pretty much not a change from the past.
The changes you propose are valid if we start with the premise that we need downvotes to begin with. But, I just don't believe they're helpful. Clearly, I'm in the minority here, but it's certainly not the first time.
Anyway, given that flags are a mechanism for problematic content, you seem to be saying that some comments merit disagreement and discussion, while others should just be cast aside, though they are not "fully problematic" so as to warrant a flag. Still, they are not even deserving of "normal" comments or discussion? Why not? As a function of others expressing more rigorous disagreement? So, if I disagree then we should discuss. But, if I disagree strongly, then we should torpedo your comment altogether?
These are earnest questions, because I don't get that approach in a place that is presumably aimed at thoughtful discussion. I've seen too many cases wherein someone expresses a thoughtful idea, but gets downvoted because people disagree. Look at the comment that started this little sub-thread. The commenter was downvoted without explanation and assumed it might've been because people thought his question stupid, as if that's completely cool.
>I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction
Unfortunately, I just don't think people are generally that nuanced with it. But that may not be their fault, and instead may be in part due to what I mentioned previously: flags are for inappropriate content, comments should be for disagreement, so where does that leave downvoting? What is a "mild correction"?
>I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote
I have thought this too. I really just think downvotes are childish and counterproductive, but if there must be downvoting, then the downvoter should at least be required to provide a cogent rationale that is subject to the same public scrutiny and potential for discussion.
It just seems a perverted incentive to "punish" those who take their time to contribute to the discussion, while allowing the "punisher" to remain anonymous and lazy.
- and, of course you received some anonymous downvotes, -have my upvote while we wait for dang and the rest of the team to come up with a good solution.
As for your question: What is a "mild correction"?
Here is my take on corrections in forums without private messages:
1. Polite follow up question along the lines of: "this doesn't sound right to me, do you have sources for x?"/"did you consider y?" etc - this is the least unoffensive method I know that can be applied without knowing the person you are replying to.
2. Polite explanation of why something is wrong - all while giving the poster a way out: "this is a common misconception ...". Combine with downvotes if necessary.
3. Downvote while pointing out the stupidity of the poster: "This is wrong for reasons x, y and z and you should know better. Check your facts next time." "HN has a long history of civilized discussion and this is not something I would expect to see here and I have downvoted you." "Posts like this makes you look like a tool" etc
4. Report/flag etc
Also: "A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool."
>and, of course you received some anonymous downvotes, -have my upvote while we wait for dang and the rest of the team to come up with a good solution.
LOL! That's truly funny, and thanks for your upvote. Yeah, it seems that someone(s) are randomly going about and downvoting my comments everywhere. They apparently have no sense of irony and are consuming their own valuable (or, apparently not-so-valuable) time hunting down a random, anonymous person's comments (mine) to (I suppose) "punish" me for some transgression known only to them. Apparently, they take themselves (along with their little mouse-clicks and my meaningless karma score) very seriously. That this is happening on a site called Hacker News (full of conformist hackers?) is even more ironic.
In any case, I think all of your definitions of "mild correction" are as effective and more constructive without the downvotes, and they further encourage discussion on what is effectively a venue for exactly that. But, again, I'll also agree that the supplementary comments with the downvotes are 100% better than downvotes alone.
Agreed with you. If a comment is utterly useless, it can always be flagged. Downvoting shouldn't be implemented the way it is, as it does not explain why the comment is downvoted and as it hides the comment by graying it, hiding unpopular opinions most often.
