When you receive no feedback is when you are left to think that nobody saw it. That's when you grow bored and eventually quit.
You're the first person I've ever seen to say to downvote informative content, and that's a very good thing, because if everyone behaved like that, that behaviour would be like dumping fuel into the fire that is post-facticism and ignorance on the internet.
For what reason would you want to provide analytics data to a creator when you believe their content is "bad"? As I said before, the reason one will post on HN is to have their content seen by an audience. After all, if your intent was simply to write, why not open up notepad.exe instead? The reality is that users come to HN for the audience it provides. Logically, if someone is creating low value content, you want to leave them believing that no audience is seeing their content, not feed them with information. Don't feed the trolls, as the saying goes.
There is no actual meaning given to the buttons. No rules which state that you can press them only under exacting circumstances. Paul Graham himself says that they have no meaning and you are free to use them as you please, asking only that you do not press a button until you have genuinely read the content associated with it, corroborating the idea that it is meant to be an analytics system of sorts. As you have even pointed out yourself, interpretation is left to the user pressing the button. Which means that all you can know is that someone pressed a button. And therefore, again, it is only usable information is to know if you have an audience or not. And when it comes to low value you content, you want to hide from the user that they have an audience. Don't feed the trolls, as the saying goes.
Furthermore, I am not sure your logic holds. I have received a number of informative/downvote responses for my comment and it is currently found near the top of the page where most will see it and as a result has also garnered the most reply activity any of my comments have seen to date. If users are trying to make it less visible, they have failed miserably. The feedback that has been provided indicates that this is one of my most visible comments ever.
Again, the buttons have no real meaning. They are there simply to provide knowledge of someone having consumed your content. However, to try and find meaning, it seems most have settled on upvote = funny, downvote = informative. What is certain is that you do not want to feed the trolls. Providing analytics data to those creating garbage is how you end up with "post-facticism and ignorance on the internet" so the idea of using the downarrow to ward off negative content is completely nonsensical.
HN sorts downvoted comments lower in the page, colors them gray, and hides them from users by default. The only reason your comment is near the top of the page is because it's attached to the most upvoted top-level comment. It can't go any lower without breaking the comment thread.
Downvotes also take away karma and HN shadowbans people with negative karma.
None of this is just "analytics data" or how you'd want to treat someone writing informative comments. Your assertion the buttons are meaningless is directly at odds with how the site works.
At the time of posting this my comment sits with -2 points and, if read in order from top to bottom, is the 12th comment you will read. There are 112 total comments.
Which must mean that 100 comments much be even lower than -2, based on what you are telling us. If we assume people are downvoting poor content, that is not a good look for HN if at least 101 comments – almost all of them – were considered to be of low value.
The thing is, my read on most of those comments is that they are quite good and often informative. The outcome does not match your expectations.
> None of this is just "analytics data"
What else is gleaned from it? All I can know is that several people pressed a button. All that can tell me is that at least a handful of people saw my content. It is a weak analytics system, to be sure, but understandably you want to limit how much information is given, including for reasons of privacy. And, most importantly, you don't want to reveal any information to the trolls.
Heck if the the buttons are meaningless, why can't you downvote direct replies? People replying to your comment can't provide informative comments?
> What else is gleaned from it?
Primarily user-based moderation. Downvoted comments are dropped lower in the page, and removed if downvoted enough. Users who are sufficiently downvoted are shadowbanned, all without moderator intervention.
To incentivize replying instead. From the site's perspective, the reply is the preferred way to indicate to another that you saw their comment. Content is its bread and butter at the end of the day. A site that is nothing more than a bunch of arrows that people press would never gain any users.
However, it is well understood that only a small fraction of users are content creators. Most users will not take the time to formulate a reply. Thus the vote buttons are offered as a lower friction option to try and get them engaged in at least some capacity in order to give the analytics feedback to those who are creating the content.
Once you have provided a comment, though, you have demonstrated to the site that you are a content creator and are statistically likely to produce more content again in the future.
> People replying to your comment can't provide informative comments?
They will know that you read their comment when you reply to it. The buttons themselves do not carry meaning, they only let you know that someone saw your comment. It is not that you must press the button when it is informative, that's just the convention that seems to have been settled on as what other use would the button be for?
You certainly are not going to press it if you encounter a troll as that feeds them. The first rule of using the internet is do not feed the trolls. Why would you ever violate the internet's first rule? You wouldn't, of course.
> Downvoted comments are dropped lower in the page
Demonstrably not.
Granted, we are talking about comments, not stories, but presumably the same logic holds? What do you find intellectually interesting about low value content? Doesn't the premise of downvoting "bad" content violate the notion of it being intellectually interesting, thus violating the intent of the voting system?
But let's assume that comments are meant to be treated differently. All we really have to go on with respect to comments is from pg[1]. He indicates that the buttons have no meaning; use it however you please. He only considers it abuse if you press the button without reading the comment first, which, again, goes back to it being an analytics system.
In fact, there already exists a flag button for dealing with "bad" content which doesn't reveal analytics data to the user.
pg was an early pioneer in developing methods to stop spammers[2], so no doubt he, more than most, understands the importance of not leaking participation data to spammers. If they know you're reading, they're going to keep on doing it. Only when they think their audience has disappeared will they stop. And, so, downvoting their content is ultimately nonsensical, even if nobody is going to ban you if you do. Given that the buttons have no meaning, there is no policing. It is fundamentally impossible to determine your voting intent by observing your action of pressing an unlabelled button. But there is an assumption that you will use the buttons in good faith around content you find interesting, not to feed the trolls.
I'd request that you don't downvote my comments should you ever find one informative.
Thank goodness this is not actually how most people use up/downvotes.