(I'm not saying HN should do exactly the same thing, but one example is Slashdot's system where a comment can get downvoted in a way that tags it specifically as trolling/offtopic/whatever - https://slashdot.org/faq/mod-metamod.shtml seems to describe it alright)
I downvote for off topic, or for comments which detract from the conversation. I believe most others with the ability to downvote do the same.
Replying to off topic posts would be counter to the purpose of downvoting.
Some comments can go yo-yo, but I don't think it is possible to see the two counts separately.
I'd go the other way - disallow downvoting if you comment, and disallow comments if you downvoted. You get one choice of how to indicate that you don't feel the comment is correct.
Admittedly, teaching people not to downvote just for disagreement would be better. Personally, I downvote a ton, but never for disagreement - I downvote for exactly the reasons I see in the guidelines: non-substantive comments. Or, admittedly, I also downvote people who are just being a jerk.
I know that I have stupidly taken some downvotes personally, but later realized, those comments were maybe not bad by itself, but in that context attracting flamewar OT debates. With some extra words, I would have realized sooner.
And downvoting for merely not liking someones opinion is something I really don't like, but is explicitely allowed here.
So yes downvotes for mere disagreements are okay here.
Personally, I don't downvote anything unless it's either complete and utter bullshit (e.g. someone acting like PHP is bad based on arguments barely valid in the end of the PHP5 era), or it is plain and simple far-right/conspiratorial in nature. It used to be the case that this was how most people used the downvote feature.
Nowadays? Seems like the tide has shifted, and even completely legitimate viewpoints (not just on politics threads) get downvotes for unexplainable reasons. It saddens me a bit.
> I'm not saying HN should do exactly the same thing, but one example is Slashdot's system where a comment can get downvoted in a way that tags it specifically as trolling/offtopic/whatever
Such a thing exists. You have to open the comment's dedicated page by clicking on the timestamp; if you're over 500-1k karma you can then flag it. Enough flags auto-kill comments and they only appear for those who have "showdead" enabled.
That would be awesome were it possible. Got any special insight into how to do that? I don't have a problem doing so, 16 yrs on reddit, if I ever downvoted even 30 times total, I'd be shocked. Others I've talked to make it seem like that's a daily or at best weekly total for them...
I think the trouble is that people fear others seeing the comment. Downvoting is used as a technique to prevent that contamination. It betrays some sort of mistrust in others' intellects.
Dead posts are far from the majority here, and the vast majority are dead for a very good reason.
Grey posts just mean that some people disagree, but it does not really say much about the post itself. It might be that the tone was wrong, or the poster was being an arse. It does not prevent people reading it, and it does not prevent discussions about it. Grey posts are not a sign of persecution or a cabal against you, it’s just that it rubbed some people the wrong way.
You are interacting with a whole lot of people here. Some of them will have had a bad day or just be irrational. You don’t need many of these to get a net negative vote count. It does not really matter.
If I make a factually inaccurate comment, I can expect at least three replies correcting me. We like to joke that they all start with "actually..." Maybe I've also been downvoted, but it's clear I was incorrect about something.
If I'm downvoted without replies, was I being a jerk? This requires some self-reflection, but there's rarely any mystery. Maybe I made a joke that fell flat, wasn't appreciated, or was deemed unsubstantial. Flop on this one badly enough and the mod will let you know by word or act.
Which brings us to the last possibility. If I haven't been incorrect, a jerk, telling dad jokes, or being generally pointless and my comment is still being downvoted, then it means I've said something that some people wish wasn't true. It might not even be a majority, just whoever happened to be passing by. Be proud and don't sweat the fake internet points.
It's a totally sane motivation it just doesn't obviously make a messageboard better.
I guess that's probably the best way to summarize this argument - the extraordinary burden demands extraordinary benefit and not even the people who are really into this idea often argue the benefit would be commensurate with the burden.
Downvotes are for material that does not support productive discussion, if it is productive to discuss a comment (even on a meta level like “why it is a bad comment”?), then downvoting is inappropriate.
Which is a good point, but nevertheless I think that if one disagrees with a post (excluding the post breaking site guidelines), it is good culture to explain to the poster why one has done so.
This reminds of the 1-5 star rating system issues, and how people interpret it however they want without reading what it means. Let’s take Uber for example. I leave a 5/5 rating for a purely average trip where everything went as expected. Afaik, this is how Uber’s rating scale works (apparently drivers start getting warnings if they drop below ~4.5), so it surprised me when I once saw a friend give a 4/5 since the trip was “just normal/average”.
Conversely, let’s take Goodreads, where I feel that many people don’t read the definition of the rating scale and give star ratings not matching the definitions.
Goodreads definition is: 1 star="did not like it", 2 star="it was ok", 3 star="liked it", 4 star="really liked it", 5 star="it was amazing".
With that, if you simply found a book “ok”, you are to give 2/5. If you simply “didn’t like it”, then that’s a 1/5. It shouldn’t be unexpected to see many 2/5 and 1/5. And a 5/5 should be a rarity. Yet you if look at the actual reviews, feels like many people don’t follow the rating scale definitions and give it their own meaning.
I'm reminded of the xdcd "someone is wrong on the internet!" comment. I'm starting to get to the point where I don't feel like arguing or even explaining things; I just want to downvote, move on, and hope my moderation contribution has made the shape of the thread more useful to people.
If I had to explain my downvotes every time, I'd hardly ever bother, and I suspect that's true for most people. A forum where no one wants to take the time to moderate is not going to be a healthy place.
[1]: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[2]: >>2403589
I don't think we should make it any more complicated. You might benefit (on the margin) from some feedback, but that makes the conversation more noisy for everyone.
I can say that personally, if I downvote something without also replying to it, it's either because I don't have time to write a helpful response, or because I know my own contribution would make things worse.