It would be very interesting to see a list of the top 50 or so downmodding offenders next to a list of their "karma score" (or whatever it's called here). Even anonymous statistics would be interesting. Some people are just mean because they can be.
I'll second this with one minor caveat. They're not necessarily "downmodding offenders" until proven as such by the data you're requesting. They're just the top 50 downvoters.
I too am curious to see the downmod/upmode ratio (anonymously of course). I think mine is probably 10-20 upmods to 1 downmods, and I mod sparsely (maybe 1 comment in 20? depends on the thread). I downmod "noise", not signal I disagree with.
While we're geeking out, I'd be more interested in some kind of karma/comment metric than absolute karma.
Maybe. But some people tend to see the good in things, and some tend to focus on the bad. I think it could be reasonably hypothesized that persons who downvote a lot focus more on the negatives.
It's hard to read contextualization or to infer what we refer to as vocal inflections through writing; I am as guilty as anyone of the occasional "posting while drinking" (which I've noticed does tend to make my writing seem a little bit more hostile than intended); however, some attempts at humor here just end up falling pretty flat.
Down-modding is not what brings the interesting conversations out of the woodwork; up-modding does. So they are "downmodding offenders", especially if the comment was previously up-modded from its original default score.
It would likewise be interesting to hear what are your thoughts about anonymity and freedom in general.
Should we publicize a list of people who voted for the Canadian Lobster Party, because they obviously did it out of spite and should be punished for their lack of patriotism? Or do the benefits of anonymous voting (or modding, in this instance) outweigh the costs of people who don't take the rules seriously?
There's a little society going on here at HN. If you feel compelled to punish people who stray from the "true path" here, it's probably just a reflection of your greater worldview.
And in a final attempt to be downmodded, let me quote scripture:
"He who is true in a little, is true in much; he who is false in small things, is false in great." Luke 16:10
It would likewise be interesting to hear what are your thoughts about anonymity and freedom in general.
Should we publicize a list of people who voted for the Canadian Lobster Party
Hey, if the numbers were interesting, why not? I'm INTP; I love looking for patterns in things, especially numbers. Social media is almost like poker in that it has a psychology issue.
But that said, I don't really downmod people very often (inadvertently sometimes, since the up and downmod arrows are so close together). My upmod/downmod ratio is probably something like 79 to 1. I'm curious about others'.
Yeah, sometimes certain people irk me, but usually do I respond to them before downmodding. And I usually attempt to befriend them after an apology, or at least an attempt for a truce on a subject we might disagree about. But some people are just vindictive, or extreme cynics.
As a result of this, I have a lot of one or two-point comments. This doesn't bother me; I'm not here to karma whore. I like the articles and the discussions, and tend to lurk most of the time anyway, posting only in spurts.
P.S. Why did you say that you're "attempting to be downmodded"?
Fair enough. I agree the numbers could be interesting. But it's quite different if you want to see users' names.
I grow weary of HN's Singaporean (overly sanitized) approach to geek discussion. Geeks suffer enough from intellectual narcissism without trying to constitutionalize it. Thankfully there's enough brain candy on the site to compensate.
And people, let's go light on the hacker this and hacker that. We all get it. We're all keen to learn and explore. But... was Michael Jackson a hacker? Geebus. Labels are overrated.
God Bless the USA, but there's something distinctly American about coming up with a subtly differentiated product and then hyping it as the total opposite of what came just before it. Yeah, I mean HN / Reddit / Slashdot.
P.S.: I made the remark about being downmodded because I assumed my gentle admonishment would be unpopular, plus I noticed that almost without fail it happens when people quote the Bible.
Fair enough. I agree the numbers could be interesting. But it's quite different if you want to see users' names.
Well, a name is just a variable. If that variable can be correlated to a group status of another value within a social network, it can reveal patterns about social dynamics and even things about viral distribution of certain prominent ideas / memes / buzz-worthy topics.
It is interesting how, for example, the Google zeitgeist works, or the "trending topics" on Twitter. There are big pipes and there are small pipes, but in the oligopoly of mainstream media, it is only a select few who control the flow of data.
P.S. By "mainstream media," I mean the conglomerates who control the major networks of NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, and the other free airwaves that don't require a cable subscription payment every month.
