News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by qeorge on Saturday June 06, 2009 @08:28PM (#645336)
Here's what I don't understand:

I see anti-Arrington comments like this frequently, yet TechCrunch appears on the frontpage every day (usually several times a day). Where's the disconnect?

(Full disclosure: I received a Mike Arrington review copy)

Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by pg on Saturday June 06, 2009 @08:42PM (#645354)
TC is polarizing, but HN doesn't have downvotes.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by ankhmoop on Saturday June 06, 2009 @10:22PM (#645437)
TechCrunch, Coding Horror -- both make me pine for downvotes. Nothing else does.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by qeorge on Saturday June 06, 2009 @09:11PM (#645378)
But isn't not upvoting a form of downvoting?
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by ynniv on Saturday June 06, 2009 @09:20PM (#645384)
No, if 100 people love something and 100 people hate it, it will show up on the front page with +100. With downvoting, it would not show up on the front page with a score of 0.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by weaksauce on Sunday June 07, 2009 @12:44AM (#645559)
It should be also mentioned that on most days it only takes a handful of votes to get to the front page.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by ynniv on Sunday June 07, 2009 @03:47PM (#646237)
It might take a lot more with downvoting!
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by weaksauce on Sunday June 07, 2009 @04:50PM (#646339)
It would certainly take more to get to the front page with downvoting. I think the trouble with downvoting is if you have a polarizing story that is interesting the vocal minority could in practice downvote stories that don't align with their worldview. Thus censoring an otherwise merit based story economy.

I was toying with different downvoting schemes but all of them seemed flawed in a fundamental way:

You could have downvotes after a certain threshold.

You could have downvoting carry a different weight based on how much karma you have.

You could have downvotes only after a certain time has passed thus making stories with polarizing opinions not get squashed immediately but still allow for the opposition to have their voice heard.

You could have downvotes only enabled on submissions from members under a certain karma threshold.

I am sure there are many more ways to do the downvoting but I think there is a more fundamental problem with downvotes in that it creates a kind of hostile community. It might be worth having the occasional dumb story come to the front page to keep this place a civil place. Downvotes in the comment section should be reserved for a person that does not further the discussion or is overly rude to another member here.

Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by ynniv on Tuesday June 09, 2009 @09:00AM (#648980)
What about N downvotes per day, possibly based on the log of your karma? This reserves them for something that really bothers me, but limits the power of a like-minded community. It might also help to display the downvotes in red next to the total, since a downvote would be more scarce than an upvote, and may be more informative.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by weaksauce on Wednesday June 10, 2009 @01:28PM (#651378)
Not a bad idea... I like the attenuating nature of the log of the karma. It would probably need to be coupled with some of the other ideas in the parent post to be fair to new stories with only one karma unfairly down voted by one or two dissenting voices.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by timf on Sunday June 07, 2009 @01:16AM (#645593)
In that hypothetical situation it might be interesting to see both upvote and downvote numbers to gauge a 'controversy' vs. complete lack of interest (on both submissions and comments). Or perhaps listing 'score' and 'votes'.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by jballanc on Sunday June 07, 2009 @02:41AM (#645687)
Yes, but I actually sort of prefer the way this incentivizes sharing of interesting links with the community. That is, the only way to get the stuff you don't like off of the front page is to share something better!
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by GHFigs on Sunday June 07, 2009 @05:23AM (#645776)
Moreover, it indicates that getting the stuff you don't like off the front page is not something to strive for. If you don't like it, ignore it. It is a sign that at the moment, the community here has found nothing more interesting to show you.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by dk on Sunday June 07, 2009 @10:44AM (#645937)
I can't say I've seen a link I disliked so much that I felt the need to hunt down something to help drive it off the front page. This incentive seems dubious, and if real, the benefits dubious.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by axod on Sunday June 07, 2009 @06:31AM (#645813)

  downvoteArticle(id) {
      for (aid in articles) {
          if (aid!=id) upvote(aid);
      }
  }
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by axod on Sunday June 07, 2009 @09:48AM (#645900)
More specifically, something like this, will add kinda functional downmod arrows:

  // Find all <a> links with an id of up_* then add a downmod arrow which upvotes everything apart from this article on the page.
	
  var links = document.getElementsByTagName("a");     // Look at all links...
	
  for (var i=0;i<links.length;i++) {
    var alink = links.item(i);
    if (alink.id.substring(0,3)=="up_") {
	        // We found one...
            
    var downer = document.createElement("a");
    var img = document.createElement("img");
    img.src = "/graydown.gif";
    img.style.border = "0";
    downer.appendChild(img);
    alink.parentNode.appendChild(document.createElement("br"));
    alink.parentNode.appendChild(downer);
    downer.href = "#";
    downer.onclick = function(n) {
        return function() {
            downmod(n);
        }
    }(alink);
  }

  // Downmod by upvoting everything else...
  function downmod(node) {
    var links = document.getElementsByTagName("a");     // Look at all links...
	
    for (var i=0;i<links.length;i++) {
      var alink = links.item(i);
      if (alink.id.substring(0,3)=="up_") {
        // We found one...
        if (alink!=node) vote(alink);               // Vote for it...
      }
    }
  }
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by jibiki on Saturday June 06, 2009 @08:48PM (#645360)
> Where's the disconnect?

Nobody can downvote articles.

Also, TC's journalism isn't usually just MA stirring up drama. The average TC article on HN simply profiles a new startup, or service, or acquisition.

Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by jganetsk on Sunday June 07, 2009 @12:39PM (#646030)
Now, the average TC article is about Twitter.
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by htsh on Saturday June 06, 2009 @09:32PM (#645387)
just wondering - if nobody can downvote, how is it than some trollish stories end up at 0 or negative numbers?
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by oomkiller on Saturday June 06, 2009 @09:37PM (#645390)
Never seen a negative story, but I have seen stories removed, which is done by an admin (i think) after it gets a few 'flags'
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by htsh on Saturday June 06, 2009 @10:22PM (#645438)
you're right, i've never seen a story but i've seen comments that are at 0 or negative. I assume that there are a bunch of moderators that can downvote?
Re:Leo Laporte loses it with Mike Arrington on the Gillmor Gang by jibiki on Saturday June 06, 2009 @10:30PM (#645445)
Anyone with 101 or more karma can downvote comments.