But if I had said that I wouldn't be getting sweet Internet points right now.
Yes, you would. Criticizing and complaining about HN is popular on HN.
I think you nailed it though, it's the "points" thing. You're creating an incentive for people to desperately say witty things to get more points, but when people forcefully try to be witty or helpful they end up being formulaic in the worst way ... they find patterns that people almost always approve of and use that.
I wonder what would happen if you actually hide all the numbers ... all karma/etc is still there, just not visible to the user.
I think for one thing it would cut down on the phenonenom I've noticed here where slightly controversial comments are immediately downvoted, but which then are upvoted back to full visibility. There seems to be a dedicated core of HNers who zealously and frequently downvote any comment that's not directly related to hard-core technology issues (there may be other motives, I've not examined the patterns carefully). These quick dowvotes are often enough to cause some feelings of ill-will that persist through the rest of the exchange.
I think limiting the number of available downvotes would drastically reduce these quick downvotes, which would be a good thing.
How about downvotes costing you karma? Warm fuzzy upvotes wherever you like (limited only by how long you want to spend doing so), but harming someone else via downvote only available if you're committed enough to lose a karma point of your own. The "pile on the crappy post" is easy when it's free, but sometimes downvoting is personally important enough to do even if it costs something.
Comments
Yes, you would. Criticizing and complaining about HN is popular on HN.
I think you nailed it though, it's the "points" thing. You're creating an incentive for people to desperately say witty things to get more points, but when people forcefully try to be witty or helpful they end up being formulaic in the worst way ... they find patterns that people almost always approve of and use that.
I wonder what would happen if you actually hide all the numbers ... all karma/etc is still there, just not visible to the user.
That's a pretty interesting idea. I like it. I don't know of any community that has tried this.
What if you were only allotted a certain (small) number of upvotes and downvotes per day or HN submission? I wonder what effect that would have.
I think for one thing it would cut down on the phenonenom I've noticed here where slightly controversial comments are immediately downvoted, but which then are upvoted back to full visibility. There seems to be a dedicated core of HNers who zealously and frequently downvote any comment that's not directly related to hard-core technology issues (there may be other motives, I've not examined the patterns carefully). These quick dowvotes are often enough to cause some feelings of ill-will that persist through the rest of the exchange.
I think limiting the number of available downvotes would drastically reduce these quick downvotes, which would be a good thing.
How about downvotes costing you karma? Warm fuzzy upvotes wherever you like (limited only by how long you want to spend doing so), but harming someone else via downvote only available if you're committed enough to lose a karma point of your own. The "pile on the crappy post" is easy when it's free, but sometimes downvoting is personally important enough to do even if it costs something.
The problem with these internet points is that they combine funny, constructive into a single meaningless number (game reviews also do this)
Edit: I'm new here and I still don't see the points.