Downvoting is already limited by social capital (how many times you can downvote is a fucntion of your own karma score). Causing it to also decrease one’s karma would discourage downvoting outright instead of merely limiting it, and that is an unwanted thing.
Well, I don’t think we can say a priori that my proposal would not work. I think it might, because I think it reflects what happens in the real world enforcement of social rules. The enforcer puts himself on the line in the real world. You want the would be police to pay a certain price.
But I’m glad that, as you mention, there seems to be some sort of limit. I suspect it’s not enough.
Note that downvoting isn’t particularly censorious, here. A specific comment has to get multiple downvotes on its own merits to be hidden (comments from users with net-negative karma are throttled, but not hidden); even then the comment is just hidden, not removed, and there’s a clear marker that the comment exists. Further, individual users can turn off the option of having downvoted comments hidden—I have, and if I remember correctly I’ve seen others mention that they’ve done so as well. Individuals’ overall karma scores are not especially visible and don’t affect very much, especially when one has more than 100-200 karma or so and is not especially at risk of going under the cutoff for posting to the main area of the site.
Note that downvoting isn’t particularly censorious, here. A specific comment has to get multiple downvotes on its own merits to be hidden
The problem is that there is bandwagon behavior: a comment with a negative score will tend to be downvoted further. (This also applies on the positive side.)
Also, while a negative score may not prevent a comment from being viewed, it will have status repercussions on the author, as readers make note of it. The tendency will be for readers to pay less attention to comments by that user.
The problem is that there is bandwagon behavior: a comment with a negative score will tend to be downvoted further. (This also applies on the positive side.)
Does this happen? I think my behaviour is actually the opposite, I sometimes upvote comments that I think have been downvoted unfairly even though I probably wouldn’t consider them worth an upvote otherwise.
It would be startling if conformity bias didn’t operate here, and I don’t see much evidence that it doesn’t.
That said, I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. I often upvote after (IMO) unearned downvotes, and sometimes downvote after unearned upvotes, but that doesn’t mean I’m not subject to the bandwagon effect.
The bandwagon effect is real, I think. My own behavior is to pay particular attention to heavily upvoted or downvoted comments to see if I can see the reason for the excitement. If I can’t find a reason, I will often vote the opposite way, as you do. But I usually find the reason. And then I can’t resist adding my voice to the crowd’s.
And since the upvoting and downvoting is silent and anonymous, the reasons for it should and I think do(#) tend to resemble the reasons of democratic voting, which reasons were discussed in Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter—the point of the book being that the reasons tend to be irrational. The result is a phenomenon that is overall irrational, with occasional exceptions.
Granted, it might not be much of an improvement if voters had to add an explanation, since humans are nothing if not fantastic rationalizers.
(#) I say I think, because since the voting is silent and anonymous, no one but the voters can actually know, so anyone else is forced to come up with a hypothesis which fits the voting pattern.
Also, while a negative score may not prevent a comment from being viewed, it will have status repercussions on the author, as readers make note of it. The tendency will be for readers to pay less attention to comments by that user.
I’m fairly sure that that’s not the same thing as censorship.
(Or does ‘censorious’ refer to censure, rather than censorship? I probably should have looked that up before I used it, rather than assuming that Constant was staying on topic...)
I couldn’t help but notice that you wanted to share blame with me:
rather than assuming that Constant was staying on topic...
Do you mean that seriously? Do you want to have a discussion about what the topic was and whether I stayed on it? I’m not really inclined to, but here you’ve blamed something on me.
Your very first comment in this thread started with “while I’m on the topic of karma”. Since it was your fist comment in this thread, I assumed that that bit referred to the conversation you’d been having elsewhere, minutes before, which included themes of karma and censorship.
As I implied, that’s not an assumption that I should have made, though I think it’s somewhat understandable that I did. (What did you mean by that phrase?)
I meant I’m on the topic of karma. And I was on the topic of karma. Of karma—not of karma and hacker news, or karma and deleting comments, or karma and censorship. But of karma.
In my experience, “while I’m on the topic of X” means “I’m going to continue talking about X, but in a slightly different way” or “I’m changing the topic to a different subtopic of X than the one I was just discussing” or “I’m changing the topic to something that’s vaguely related to topic-at-hand X”. In any case, it refers to a continuation of talking-about-X, which means that it’s not completely beyond the pale to assume that various other concepts that have been used are still part of the conversation.
This appears to be turning into a pissing contest. I’m not interested in playing apey games with you.
I wasn’t challenging you to a pissing contest, I was defending myself against an attempt to deflect blame onto me. If you didn’t want me to defend myself, you probably should not have tried to use me as a convenient person to deflect blame from yourself. The problem was that you didn’t know what a word meant. That’s not my fault.
The comments are hidden in the original post’s comments section, yes—but they’re not hidden on our user pages, or on the recent comments page, and the latter is a major component of how many of the more active users keep track of conversations. (It’s where I’m typing this very reply!) They also increment the “(N children)” note for the hidden-comment marker, which I expect makes people more likely to click and see what’s being discussed.
Ironically enough, the conversation is also long enough that even with the option to have downvoted comments hidden turned off, one has to click on a link to “continue this thread »”. This takes exactly as much effort as clicking on a link to unhide a comment, and the interface doesn’t even encourage the user to do so by letting them know that there are a significant number of comments left to read. Is this also censorship?
What? What’s your context for asking me that rhetorical question? My problem in this thread was with a good, solid comment that made a good point (written by Vladimir M) getting downvoted. I didn’t say he was censored. I simply pointed out that he got a downvote for a bad reason and I suggested a possible fix.
Elsewhere I mentioned that in hacker news I had been permanently frozen out because of my first comment being downvoted. But that was to answer folks who were criticizing my decision to delete my own comment. I explained the history of my concern.
I’m not sure how your question applies to any of this.
Downvoting is already limited by social capital (how many times you can downvote is a fucntion of your own karma score). Causing it to also decrease one’s karma would discourage downvoting outright instead of merely limiting it, and that is an unwanted thing.
Well, I don’t think we can say a priori that my proposal would not work. I think it might, because I think it reflects what happens in the real world enforcement of social rules. The enforcer puts himself on the line in the real world. You want the would be police to pay a certain price.
But I’m glad that, as you mention, there seems to be some sort of limit. I suspect it’s not enough.
Note that downvoting isn’t particularly censorious, here. A specific comment has to get multiple downvotes on its own merits to be hidden (comments from users with net-negative karma are throttled, but not hidden); even then the comment is just hidden, not removed, and there’s a clear marker that the comment exists. Further, individual users can turn off the option of having downvoted comments hidden—I have, and if I remember correctly I’ve seen others mention that they’ve done so as well. Individuals’ overall karma scores are not especially visible and don’t affect very much, especially when one has more than 100-200 karma or so and is not especially at risk of going under the cutoff for posting to the main area of the site.
The problem is that there is bandwagon behavior: a comment with a negative score will tend to be downvoted further. (This also applies on the positive side.)
Also, while a negative score may not prevent a comment from being viewed, it will have status repercussions on the author, as readers make note of it. The tendency will be for readers to pay less attention to comments by that user.
Does this happen? I think my behaviour is actually the opposite, I sometimes upvote comments that I think have been downvoted unfairly even though I probably wouldn’t consider them worth an upvote otherwise.
It would be startling if conformity bias didn’t operate here, and I don’t see much evidence that it doesn’t.
That said, I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. I often upvote after (IMO) unearned downvotes, and sometimes downvote after unearned upvotes, but that doesn’t mean I’m not subject to the bandwagon effect.
The bandwagon effect is real, I think. My own behavior is to pay particular attention to heavily upvoted or downvoted comments to see if I can see the reason for the excitement. If I can’t find a reason, I will often vote the opposite way, as you do. But I usually find the reason. And then I can’t resist adding my voice to the crowd’s.
And since the upvoting and downvoting is silent and anonymous, the reasons for it should and I think do(#) tend to resemble the reasons of democratic voting, which reasons were discussed in Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter—the point of the book being that the reasons tend to be irrational. The result is a phenomenon that is overall irrational, with occasional exceptions.
Granted, it might not be much of an improvement if voters had to add an explanation, since humans are nothing if not fantastic rationalizers.
(#) I say I think, because since the voting is silent and anonymous, no one but the voters can actually know, so anyone else is forced to come up with a hypothesis which fits the voting pattern.
I’m fairly sure that that’s not the same thing as censorship.
(Or does ‘censorious’ refer to censure, rather than censorship? I probably should have looked that up before I used it, rather than assuming that Constant was staying on topic...)
Censorious means harshly critical, disapproving.
Oops.
I couldn’t help but notice that you wanted to share blame with me:
Do you mean that seriously? Do you want to have a discussion about what the topic was and whether I stayed on it? I’m not really inclined to, but here you’ve blamed something on me.
Your very first comment in this thread started with “while I’m on the topic of karma”. Since it was your fist comment in this thread, I assumed that that bit referred to the conversation you’d been having elsewhere, minutes before, which included themes of karma and censorship.
As I implied, that’s not an assumption that I should have made, though I think it’s somewhat understandable that I did. (What did you mean by that phrase?)
I meant I’m on the topic of karma. And I was on the topic of karma. Of karma—not of karma and hacker news, or karma and deleting comments, or karma and censorship. But of karma.
In my experience, “while I’m on the topic of X” means “I’m going to continue talking about X, but in a slightly different way” or “I’m changing the topic to a different subtopic of X than the one I was just discussing” or “I’m changing the topic to something that’s vaguely related to topic-at-hand X”. In any case, it refers to a continuation of talking-about-X, which means that it’s not completely beyond the pale to assume that various other concepts that have been used are still part of the conversation.
This appears to be turning into a pissing contest. I’m not interested in playing apey games with you.
I wasn’t challenging you to a pissing contest, I was defending myself against an attempt to deflect blame onto me. If you didn’t want me to defend myself, you probably should not have tried to use me as a convenient person to deflect blame from yourself. The problem was that you didn’t know what a word meant. That’s not my fault.
This very thread on karma is now hidden, including your own comment, because my comment upthread reached −3.
The comments are hidden in the original post’s comments section, yes—but they’re not hidden on our user pages, or on the recent comments page, and the latter is a major component of how many of the more active users keep track of conversations. (It’s where I’m typing this very reply!) They also increment the “(N children)” note for the hidden-comment marker, which I expect makes people more likely to click and see what’s being discussed.
Ironically enough, the conversation is also long enough that even with the option to have downvoted comments hidden turned off, one has to click on a link to “continue this thread »”. This takes exactly as much effort as clicking on a link to unhide a comment, and the interface doesn’t even encourage the user to do so by letting them know that there are a significant number of comments left to read. Is this also censorship?
What? What’s your context for asking me that rhetorical question? My problem in this thread was with a good, solid comment that made a good point (written by Vladimir M) getting downvoted. I didn’t say he was censored. I simply pointed out that he got a downvote for a bad reason and I suggested a possible fix.
Elsewhere I mentioned that in hacker news I had been permanently frozen out because of my first comment being downvoted. But that was to answer folks who were criticizing my decision to delete my own comment. I explained the history of my concern.
I’m not sure how your question applies to any of this.