this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
109 points (97.4% liked)
Programming
17443 readers
156 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's true that down-voting is a form of information, in some contexts. I could even say "Who wants tacos today? Up-vote if yes, down-vote if no", and it could be fully friendly. It is just that here, in this situation, I didn't get it.
Ofc it's this huge tangent from the OP b/c originally there was just a single down-vote, and I was curious if I were missing something wrt DDG, but it sounds like not, just "sometimes people prefer to use Google". Which sounds like it would apply to every non-Google suggestion though?
And then my asking that meta-question quadrupled the number of down-votes - probably like you said, people consider this tangent not relevant to the OP - but at least as a result of it all I know I am not missing anything important... that anyone is willing to write out:-D. Which seems important, crucial even, info for OP and others to have? About the down-sides to DDG I mean.
But look how many words and messages we had to use and even number of respondents had to participate just to dig out that truth. Even a comment like "you suck, nerd!" - aside from its unfriendliness & irrelevance to the discussion - does act to disambiguate the reasoning behind a down-vote, whereas simply down-voting with no explanation sends a confusing signal with no clear interpretation (except perhaps in the mind of the sender).
This is why I may pile on the downvotes, to signal agreement, but if I am the first to take that initiative, I do at least take the time to reply so they aren't left wondering why.
Remember the human, and all of that:-).
I scrolled back to see, and I think that initial one was just someone who disagreed with your suggestion, for whatever reason (like I downvote incorrect responses to order of operations questions. i.e. hearsay which contradicts what's actually in textbooks and taught), but then yeah, there was some piling on when you asked for an explanation, and I just write them off as "I don't want to see this" types. At first it bothered me, but in the end I just take out of it that I got more upvotes than downvotes, so just proceed with business as usual then. :-)
Yeah, there's some keyboard-warriors who forget that. You learn to just ignore the downvoters unless, like in your situation, you'd like an explanation as to why your particular suggestion was downvoted by someone. e.g. maybe they know something that you don't. There was a whole side-discussion about Kagi like that (someone had seen something on a blog, and someone else pointed out the CEO's response to the blog, etc. - I didn't read the whole thing... but I didn't downvote it either ;-) ).
Yeah, it seems much more sane merely to scroll down, in the normal use-case, except as you said when there is something else going on or a more extreme reaction is warranted like why are you advocating for genocide in a post discussing what search engine alternatives exist (which fortunately did not happen here, but occasionally such events do pop up...:-P).
Oh look i found a video of today's event.