zlacker

For the (at least) 2 people that downvoted this: what part of this comment is controversial or offends you? I don’t see it, and I would love to understand. Downvoting without comment does no good for anyone.

>>downan+(OP)
I didn't do this in this situation, but I sometimes downvote by accident in an attempt to collapse. There are a lot of people on this thread so it could have happened.

>>daniel+l1
It’s now at -4 (went from +2 to -2). Which means that there is something in it that offends people, but nobody is willing to say what it is. I am genuinely trying to understand, because there isn’t a single shred of text in that comment that was intended to be offensive to anyone.

>>downan+(OP)
I upvoted. But I think you got downvoted because people don't want to have to advertise themselves as "willing to take criticism". That should be norm. Perhaps we agree and you should clarify your message.

Sometimes I get harsh criticism, I can get momentaneously defensive and it hurts a ton but you won't see me lashing back at the person and chances are you'll see me thanking them.

>>daniel+l1
the "undown" is such a quick and onbious fix if you fat-finger a tiny tappable here

>>hu3+w2
But I think you got downvoted because people don't want to have to advertise themselves as "willing to take criticism". That should be norm.

Agreed, it sucks. But unfortunately in today’s environment, there are enough people creating social media backlash over well-intended advice that it is necessary. Successful people are taking career and social risks by merely speaking openly to people they do not know. The best way to lower that perceived risk for them, and to improve your odds of getting useful advice from a wider array of successful people, is to present yourself as someone who will not crucify them for trying to help.

>>downan+Z1
I would guess the nda part. Many people hate the very idea of an nda. But really (down)votes are for saying you agree or disagree without cluttering up the thread with useless comments. So they just didn't agree, they weren't necessarily offended.

Fwiw I upvoted your first comment and down voted the ones talking about votes.

>>downan+Z1
It’s interesting because there’s also the meta question of why your comments are being downvoted. I think possibly because on HN you’re not supposed to comment specifically about up or down votes, but like you I am also curious.

I wonder if there should be a policy where you can only downvote if you leave a comment on it first. And somewhat relatedly I think the policy should extend to flagged posts.

>>downan+(OP)
I didn't downvote, as I think this adds to the conversation. But as a _systemic solution_, I don't think the "advice NDA" holds up.

As a one-off (or a personal "hack"), the NDA is an offering of empathy. Sharing sincere feedback is hard. Offering the NDA shows that the advice-asker is worried about the advice-giver's well-being. It's nice and genuine, and I hope it will work.

But, this idea seems so GOOD at first blush, that I'm afraid it will become widespread and lose sincerity. Anytime feedback is involved, the NDA appears as legal boilerplate. It's no longer a personal connection built on shared vulnerability. Instead, it's a corporate threat: "If you want advice, we can either be friends or go to court."

>>hu3+w2
> people don't want to have to advertise themselves as "willing to take criticism". That should be norm.

I don't think this is precisely correct. In the situations like in the article, the issue is that both parties are playing a dance around _what kind of feedback/criticism_ is acceptable.

If I ask you "why might my business fail?", and your gut reaction is "your personal life is a mess", do you tell me this? Even with an NDA, that's _super harsh_ feedback.

(This feedback would hurt me more AFTER the NDA. The NDA would change my expectations around the types of feedback. I'd expect "you're not a good programmer" or "you don't work enough hours to beat the competition".)

But if I _really_ wanted to have my business succeed, that's feedback I probably need from someone other than my therapist. :)

>>quiesc+W8
> If I ask you "why might my business fail?", and your gut reaction is "your personal life is a mess", do you tell me this?

Fair enough. I'd only tell if you were a good friend and even then it would probably take a drink or two at the pub.

>>bryan0+17
A good reason to flag a post is that it seems like trolling. You shouldn’t need to feed the troll to downvote or flag them.

I don’t even think it would be good to require a private explanation when downvoting or flagging. In my experience with other services with user-generated content, negative feedback signals for community driven moderation are very valuable and most users never give them. You want the process to be as streamlined as possible. You can give more weight to feedback from more trusted users, which HN does in a transparent way by gating the flag and downvote options to accounts with more reputation.

To be clear, I think the comment here is a good contribution. There’s a lot of passion about this topic and the system seems to break down somewhat.