Hello. I'm a lurker but I registered to make this comment, because I feel pretty strongly about it.

I can understand that the tone of the article is one that you might not want to represent Hacker News, but I think the article subject is on point and worth considering.

I have been fortunate enough to live under a rock and not follow techcrunch at all, until I started reading HN (I'm a recent reddit lurker, and as reddit continues to become digg my clicks seem to be heading elsewhere). The TC articles I've seen in the last few weeks have all been phoned-in armchair architecture drivel and whining about del.icio.us's release schedule (seriously, who cares?)

I think the upmods to the article in question here are specific backlash against TC's quality falling faster than my west coast (USA) home's value. I'd be concerned that downmods would lead to moderation warring, and that would just bring this site one intellectual hop closer to reddit (and thereby digg).

I humbly suggest waiting for HN's traffic (using the metric of your choice) to increase 20% before reconsidering downmods. If HN develops a tradition of tuesday morning "your site sucks" rants then you absolutely have my support -- but please don't react to one or a small number of articles in what could be a very permanent and culture-shifting way.

This isn't a small number of articles; it's a growing trend that started about four months ago.

I often wonder what it takes to "convert a lurker". (It may be interesting to see what kinds of threads have people's first comments.)

Now that you're speaking, don't stop. Welcome, iigs.

If it took 5 downmods to negate an upmod would that fix the moderation warring problem?

Yes. Please.

A couple week trial period couldn't hurt. What's there to lose?

+1 to a trial period. Give it a month, collect some data, publish it, and see how things worked out.

It's worth a try. If story downvotes existed, stories like this might not even be upvoted... I suspect most of its upvotes reflect pent-up demand for downvotes on previous TC material.

This also might be a case where two-axis voting [1][2] could help. People could 'agree' (on the left-right agree-disagree axis) but also 'demote' (or no-vote) on the up-down promote-demote axis. The message would then be, "I agree but enough already!"

[1] https://hackertimes.com/item?id=117196

[2] https://hackertimes.com/item?id=126917

I think it's just an anti-TC sensibility that's emerging with the recent focus on twitter's troubles. TC seemed necessary when it was promoting startup efforts. But technical critiques seems well-beyond its niche (and I'll admit a bit terrifying to someone developing an application).

I constantly find myself wanting to downvote specific stories. My only other choice is to upvote everything around it, which isn't what I really mean to do.

I didn't vote it up myself, but I'm not surprised that on a slow news day, something about TC would get voted up by a lot of people interested in tech (especially web) startup news.

A lot of people ask for downvotes when they're particularly annoyed by a particular story, but they're always told to just go vote up something good.

A more moderate change might be to allow people to undo their upvotes if they decide the story wasn't worth saving after all.

You have more data and experience than anybody else. Try out what you think will be best and undo it if it doesn't work.

It might make sense to keep upvote and downvote counters separate until either goes over a certain threshold and only then combine them.

That's to prevent deliberate sinking of freshly posted stories by a small, but coordinated effort.

No, it will lead to more herd behavior. If people can't use upvotes reasonably, what makes you think they will use downvotes reasonably?

I think this story rose to the top because it's aligned with the eigenvector of TC-related talk at HN. Hive mind has awakened and achieved a stable thread of thought. Over time we will see more of those stable waves forming. I have twice purposely clickbaited to the top of HN, and several times at reddit - the eigenvectors of the hive mind aren't hard to see and exploit, but after a certain point it's not clear who exploits whom. :-)

The only way to stop it is restrict the community.

I agree, and I wrote the damned thing.

Since you seem in support of having a down arrow, and you never really intended to get your article to the front page, then what that says is that you were less concerned about submitting something of value than you were about promoting your writing. You shouldn't have submitted it in the first place.

Either that or you just wrote the piece knowing that it'd appeal to the growing anti-arrington/tc sentiment here, so you knew it was an easy climb to the top.

I'm getting extremely irritated by this sort of stuff. Many of you are doing exactly what you're criticizing Arrington/TC of doing - childish gossip and name calling. There's much more important, worthwhile and fulfilling shit to discuss.

I don't think relying solely on everyone's ability to restrain themselves is very reliable.

Especially since the ones you'd wish they restrained themselves the most are usually those less able to do so. (as an extreme example, ask a spammer to avoid spamming you...)

You risk a 'bury brigade' forming as seen at Digg. Maybe make the downmod arrows randomly provided to random people?

The thing that scares me already with the current system is seeing completely reasonable comments being downvoted simply because someone disagrees with the argument, and not on the merit or value it adds to the conversation. On a much larger scale, I can't say what this will do to submissions; it's possible someone will post a completely appropriate blog entry that's more of an editorial than a report or product review, only to end up receiving numerous downvotes because of a differing opinion.

But I'm with everyone else when I say to give it a trial period and see how it goes. It's the only equitable way to see how things will work out.

Make users' votes on stories public. Presumably, the purpose of upvotes is to indicate that a story will be of value to other readers. If that's the case, users should be willing to put their names behind their suggestion. Users will theoretically be less willing to vote for stories that other people won't find useful.

This solution doesn't scale, but it's quicker to implement than giving a higher weight to the votes of people who have voted for editor-selected good stories in the past. I don't like downvotes on anything.

The problem with a direct downvote mechanism is tuning it properly. If it's too weak then it won't do much good and if it's too powerful then it could potentially do harm.

I think a better idea would be to allow the editors or leaders to have some way to enable the story downvote button for the rest of the community. Perhaps after two or three leaders downvote an article, the button would be enabled for everyone.

I'd suggest requiring everyone who submits a story to justify its relevance via the text box, ignoring all story submissions that don't have accompanying text (the exact opposite of how it currently works). That should deter a lot of impulse submissions, requiring users to think about why a story is worth posting here. And it should cultivate voting practices that maintain a stronger eye towards community relevance, as opposed to general interest. I.e., don't upvote unless the submitter successfully argues their case.

Restricting upvoting controls to a story's dedicated comments page would also deter impulse upvoting and force users to check out the justification.

I think down votes are still a bad idea. Just one more way to game the system.

I'd also publicize that "vote up if you like candy" posts will be deleted. That's the only danger of the story downvote that I see--that it will be used for reddit-style popularity polls.

Yes.

One thing you might also try is allow the top n posters (nickb and company?) to enable downvoting on certain articles, whereupon the rest of us can pile on if we like.

How does that differ from allowing nickb et al to just bury an article? I can assure you, if some articles have downmodding available and others do not, those articles will be insta-gibbed off of the front few pages.

It would allow an article to remain if it has overwhelming popular support.

Give editors downvotes. This is less powerful than marking something dead. I would also give the functionality to anyone in the top 1%.