I can see the appeal of the idea but I don't think it would be a source of good information in practice. Most people won't say "I don't agree" when they can say a comment is wrong or bad instead. My instinct is that it would just lead to even more bickering about downvoting, the exact opposite of what we want.
One half-cocked idea I can think of is downvotes require a comment explaining why. Conversationally, "I agree" or "that's correct" requires no follow on conversation. However, "I disagree" or "that's wrong" requires some sort of counter-argument or reason why you disagree. IMO, it does some good in making people explain their position, at least copy/paste another position, or shitpost and then they can deal with their own downvotes.
Yeah, it's an idea. Either that or they could more enthusiastically push the idea that if you disagree you should explain why, rather than down voting.
The problem is that people would abuse the downvote button and use it as a representation of "I disagree with you" is read of "this comment adds no value to the conversation."
still a simple checkbox with a few well chosen reasons would be valuable. At the very least it would make you actually think of why you choose to downvote that specific comment. There are many nuances of disagreement, some deserving a downvote some not.
Exactly. Down-voting is not to show disagreement, it's to cull comments that don't contribute to the discussion. What I'm proposing would hopefully make people question their motives before down-voting.
An excellent idea. But I don't think it's going to become terribly common. It runs entirely contrary to the very common thinking that upvote means agreement.
You might get lots of people to do it if there were two sets of arrows, something like signal/noise and agree/disagree. But that has been proposed before.
> Are there any downsides to this proposal?
None that I can see. In any case, many of us already do this.
> Of course, this means nothing without an official seal since PG already proclaimed that you should downvote disagreements.
I very much disagree with PG's famous statement. I wish he'd reconsider.
It might be allowed by guidelines, but it's quite counter productive for any discussion and I've never seen it doing anything positive. All it does it is just hiding less voiced opinions.
You have a point that not everyone might think it's a problem though.
I personally don't agree that downvoting to disagree is OK.
No, because that allows one person to double down on negativity - it can turn something grey and detract from the comment, both of which then bias future readers to read it negatively.
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.
You don't think a downvote function could also be a good way to say "I disagree but have nothing more to add and I don't want to clutter the conversation"?
I suppose it could be argued that in that situation a comment explaining a downvote (that you agree with) would already exist, and that an upvote on that comment would serve a similar purpose to downvoting the comment it disagrees with.
There are plenty of times I disagree with a comment that don't deserve a response, however. Less frequent here on HN, but trolls trolling within the rules (to preclude moderation-based solutions) are an easy example of something that'd actually be better to downvote without a comment.
Instead of downvoting all comments that you disagree with, if you upvote the civil disagreements then you will help to curate deeper and more meaningful discussions. Upvotes are a reward for good behaviour - they release dopamine in the brain - and civil disagreement is not bad behaviour.
Of course, this means nothing without an official seal since PG already proclaimed that you should downvote disagreements. But I thought it might be worth a discussion. Are there any downsides to this proposal?
This pretty much sums up my sentiment as well. I think people should comment their disagreement instead of downvote. Others can then upvote the response, but at least dialogue can remain open.
I've actually considered using a screenname like commentdontdownvote lol.
I think for many (most?) people that would just result in them always voting +2/-2. Because stuff you disagree with is wrong (-1), and wrong posts don't contribute (-1), and likewise for agree/contributes. At least those are the heuristics that were preconfigured in my irrational monkeybrain.
Also when someone does say something I agree with but that does not contribute ("most grass is green") I wouldn't want to reward them with a +1 agree either, just punish with -1 doesn't contribute.
I don't think there's any point to having agree/disagree buttons. What should they do, push posts down that most people disagree with? Clearly that would be a mistake and a sure way to create an echo chamber.
I don't think an eleven year old statement about the status quo is a good source. We've since seen many more examples about how removing contrary opinions from the discussion creates places with negative utility. And lest anyone thinks otherwise: Making text harder to read and easier to scroll over is a clear signal to ignore the comment.
In my opinion downvotes are best used for purposes of moderation, to remove comments that poison the discussion.
I agree with this. Conflating disagreement with downvoting seems to be mixing unrelated concerns. It is currently inconvenient (in karma terms) to hold dissenting opinions.
reply