Ask HN: why so critical?

[keiferski]

Something I've noticed as of late: a good majority of comments on a post are extremely critical or negative.

Example: post on X is on the front page. The top 5 comments are long-form attacks on why "post on X" is completely mistaken.

Now, don't get me wrong, as these are often useful insights, but many of them are unnecessarily hostile, and well, just unnecessary to begin with. It's not-that-difficult to be both insightful and non-critical.

Any particular reason for this? Just a symtom of analytically-minded folk on the Internet? Perhaps it's easier to be negative and critical than positive and constructive?

And, finally, do you see it as a good or bad thing?

[sgentle]

I actually think this is a symptom of something healthy: high density of information per word.

As a recursive example: Let's say I agree with your post - as in, I think "you're right, posts are negative and I would also like to know why" - what should I post?

I believe the correct answer is nothing. Nobody wants to read the same opinion in two comments - that's bad etiquette on a site with upvote arrows.

On the other hand, let's imagine I disagree with your post. For example, if I think that the ratio of negativity to positivity represents the diversity of ways you can disagree and the paucity of ways to agree. What should I do? Well, I think the right thing is to post saying so, and to justify my disagreement in as much detail as I can. One opinion, one comment.

As a consequence, I comment negatively much more than positively. Generally when I have only nice things to say I upvote and move on. Is that bad? Like you, I'm not sure, but I believe it emerges from good.

[badclient]

That's the part about HN that I actually like. For the most part, the top neg posts in threads are thoughtful and provide a different perspective with value.

Not to mention in many occasions, I don't even think the OP has any specific opinion of the issue at debate; he is merely pointing out counterarguments to consider. I find it very helpful to evaluate counterarguments as a means to strengthening or modifying your original arguments.

That is far different from "no, you wrong!" type of comments found elsewhere on the web.

[angryasian]

Why take everything so hard? If you don't agree with whats being said just skip and read the comments that make you feel happy and warm inside. I have no opinion, but the beauty of anonymity and the internet, is things can be said that probably wouldn't in person. Its just the internet. What you consider negative, I may totally agree with. Its all relative.

[keiferski]

Well, it's not that I disagree with these comments, or that I'm only looking for ones that "make me feel happy and warm inside." My point was that a large portion of comments are focused on attacking the post, and that just seems unnecessary to me.

[brudgers]

There are a couple of things at play.

First, as others have pointed out, criticism is generally more interesting than praise and often a more productive way to extend the content or foster further conversation. Even well researched articles will stake out a position on an open issue and thereby spark debate.

Second, the writing in the the techpress often lacks any depth of analysis (something which often could be said of journalism in general) and is often based on an original communication which was intended to produce buzz or create spin - e.g. press releases, product announcements, etc.

In addition [ok it is more than a couple of things], often the criticism will be of an apparent bias or questionable level of objectivity on the part of the author.

[gapanalysis]

I enjoy hearing different perspectives and I appreciate when errors or misconceptions are corrected during threads. I don't like the nastiness. The relative anonymity of the Internet is a disinhibitor: some people feel less vulnerable and more empowered here. Others feel that this is a domain where they can tilt the bully-victim playing field in their favor and get a bit of 'payback' (unfortunately, it's rarely directed at the folks who bullied the folks posting on HN).

Being able to be critical in a positive/constructive way is a difficult skill to master. Of course, this begs whether someone wants to actually critique or bully. If you're here to bully, ignore my post (or bully me). If you actually care about respecting others and having others respect you. (A colleague and former editor/moderator of an online media forum shared these with me).

1) First, ask yourself whether the comment is worthy of a response, or if you are just entering an argument. If the latter, think whether arguing with this person in this forum is really the way you want to spend your time. (Think, too, if you'd engage in this conversation in real life) 2) If you want to participate, type what you intend to say. Study it carefully. Did you 'add value? Did contribute an intelligent remark? Did you attack someone in a personal/offensive way? Would you be offended if someone commented in this manner on your post? 3) Read, revise, re-read, and revise again until you've convinced you've expressed yourself in the clearest and least offensive manner.

If you can use humor, be assertive, and enhance the thread by sharing what you know or feel, is there really any need to reach for more (or less)?

[pedalpete]

Can you provide a link to these 'hostile' comments?

I think hostile is too strong a word to describe often 'opposing' viewpoints.

I think it is both difficult, and less effective to have middle of the road opposing views or often tamed language.

People here feel strongly about their convictions, about the way things should be done, etc. etc. That shouldn't be taken as hostile, but just differential.

Unless I am missing the initial hostility in comments, but maybe linking to a few examples could help.

[fjabre]

They reward you for being negative here. Those comments float towards the top because they are upvoted.

There are some genuinely cool and thoughtful people here on HN but mostly I find the community to be dominated by pedantic one upsmanship types who aren't in the mood for humor or typos. Sad really.

And everyone here hates on Reddit but I love the community there. Usually much friendlier and less pedantic. And a much better sense of humor to boot.

[scotto]

I've noticed this too and I usually just chalk it up to immaturity. It makes for an entertaining read so why care?

[tshtf]

I've not seen this. Could you give some specific examples?

[Mz]

It's generally helpful to remember that in face to face communication, a great deal is conveyed by voice tone, body language, facial expression, and context. People who have verbal habits like saying something kind of sarcastically or ironically and conveying by voice tone that they don't really mean it can sound way harsher in a written format than they would in person. Since in their head they still hear their own joking or warm tone, they may not realize or understand how negatively it comes across to others. Learning to communicate effectively via written word without all kinds of avatars, smileys and other "color" is a special challenge. In many cases, just cluing someone that it sounded really harsh without accusing them of anything can help them start figuring out how to do it better.