Re:Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017
by icebraining on Monday January 01, 2018 @08:58AM
(#16046056)
Sometimes people are not downvoting the content; they might consider the post was ill-timed, or irrelevant/pedantic, or inappropriate for any other reason in that context. It's hard to even guess without seeing concrete examples, but I often see people assuming too much of the motivations of downvoters.
Re:Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017
by Splines on Monday January 01, 2018 @03:40PM
(#16047919)
> they might consider the post was ill-timed, or irrelevant/pedantic, or inappropriate for any other reason in that context.
I find the current single dimensional score limiting because of this. Sometimes I want to see a funny comment, sometimes I want to see an insightful one. Scoring them equivalently doesn't really make sense.
Re:Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017
by foobarchu on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @11:31PM
(#16068056)
I don't really think "scoring" comments at all makes sense. I'd much rather systems like reddit do away with downvotes and point displays entirely, and only allow you to express your desire for something to be seen by 'upvoting'. That would influence it's sorting order, but nothing else. Users no longer get the dopamine drain of seeing "-15 points" on their post, and you stop seeing people edit things with "really? downvotes?". If someone disagrees so much that they need to express it, they should reply directly to the post.
HN as it appears to regular users is pretty close to my ideal system, except that it greys out heavily downvoted posts and you can see the number of points you have personally.
Re:Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017
by A_Person on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @11:42PM
(#16068091)
I can't stand comment systems with anonymous downvotes. It's like being in a group discussion, then someone else, hidden behind the curtain, calls out "You're an idiot!" Most people wouldn't stand for that. They'd say, "Come out and express your opinions, or stfu!"
Re:Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017
by riffraff on Monday January 01, 2018 @08:49AM
(#16046032)
this is a reason slashdot's metamoderation was such a great idea, which has, oddly, never seen any further development.
Re:Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017
by digi_owl on Monday January 01, 2018 @10:33AM
(#16046402)
Possibly because it is very strongly anti-gamification.
This while the HN/Reddit "karma" score is a very much a e-peen score board.
Re:Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017
by qznc on Monday January 01, 2018 @06:06PM
(#16048558)
What is the problem in gamifying Slashdot? You can be "funny lvl 42" and "insightful lvl 8" for example.
Re:Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017
by pjc50 on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @05:30AM
(#16051072)
I miss the ability to set your own scores so you could set Funny to score -1. Or ""Insightful"".
Re:Tiny, weird online communities made a comeback in 2017
by pjc50 on Tuesday January 02, 2018 @05:28AM
(#16051065)
I had a quick scan of your comment history for examples and the only one I could see that was grey and not simply opinionated was https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15849233 , in which you've completely missed why people want lifetime management in Rust.
> On Usenet you could filter anything you didn't want to see, which is reasonable, but you could not - as on Reddit, or HN - make it more difficult for other people to read it too, which is not reasonable, and simply helps to create a hostile, cliquey, poisonous echo chamber.
( And... you apparently got downvoted :-/ )
The most infuriating thing I experience on the Web is indeed to see awfully wrong comments being massively upvoted, next to perfectly right, on the point comments being (even slightly) downvoted. And I am not talking about opinionated comments, but just factual comments. It just drives me nuts.
I noticed that even here, when I write opinionated, or a bit rough and definitive, or a bit provocative comments, I often get upvoted (sometimes downvoted, but that's not a problem, I understand it for this kind of comments); but when I write to state purely technical, factual, documented, provable facts, I get downvoted. I just sounds insane. I can understand the difference of opinions, I can understand being upset about an opinion being roughly put in a short comment. But what I don't understand is people who downvote perfectly right purely technical comments (like for example fixing errors in a program), where there is only one truth, there is no opinion to have about it, it is either right right or wrong. That's beyond me.