I've always wondered if the down-vote should actually just be an arrow pointing sideways. People use the down-vote like it's a thumbs down. If they don't agree with an opinion, then it's a thumbs down. But really the cancerous comments are ones that, in an offline conversation, a group would quickly and politely move past and ignore. The sideways arrow would represent brushing these comments aside.
Besides, you're supposed to up-vote comments you don't necessarily agree with so long as they are well argued. That is what a good debate is about.
I agree, but there's something of a psychological barrier to upvoting something I disagree with. Perhaps two sets of arrows -- one for if we like it or not, and another for if we think it adds to this discussion. This would make it much easier to not feel "bad" for upvoting or downvoting something against our personal tastes, since we know the button is specifically for it.
That's a really interesting idea. Perhaps in a very small way it would also help to break the binary mode of thought (upvote/downvote, like/dislike, promote/demote) that people bring from other online forums.
I'm not a big fan of a lot of people's suggestions to change how this or that works like what you're saying about the downvote button. I don't think there's anything that needs to change on HN as far as buttons or rules or design go.
The problem isn't how things work. The problem is that people are ignoring the guidelines, interpreting them differently, and sometimes the guidelines aren't enforced. Take the downvote for example. There are a few trains of thought on that button. Some truly think its there for comments they disagree with. Others believe (as I do) that they're there for comments that do not add to the discussion. Still others have different interpretations. Some people use it generously and others dont. I've heard people talk about flagging as if it were something we should use liberally. I think flagging should be reserved for the very worst of the worst and should be used sparingly. In almost 3 years here I've only used it once (I know my profile says I've only been here a few months but I had another account hellbanned after over a year because someone used the flag button quite liberally).
Beyond that, the larger problem is that there's been a huge influx of new members and the quality of comments has been diluted partly due to some newer folks wanting to be heard and doing so by being asses in the comments. When you're new it's easy to think the way you fit in here is to automatically disagree with everything and try to be the smartest person in the room.
In the end, the current system would work if only people abided by it and it were enforced more. There's no doubt in my mind that the community has changed and it really has been diluted. I'm not anti-newbie but I still can't deny that it's the newbies that have diluted the quality of discussion here. I think that since HN became hip everyone who flocked here wanted to fit in and frankly I don't think everyone can. I think there's a lot of great examples of the Dunning-Kreuger effect here. HN is known for very smart, best of the best kind of people. Therefor those who come here believe, rightly or wrongly, that they too are HN caliber people. The problem is, not everyone can be. But in this new self-centered world where self-esteem is so important and everyone including the loser gets a medal no one has any kind of realistic picture of themselves anymore and everyone thinks they're the best at everything always and belong everywhere. I lurked for over a year before joining because I felt I wasnt an HN caliber person. Even now I'm not sure if I am but I'm at least confident that I can add a bit to some discussions. I really doubt that everyone who creates an account here has that kind of restraint or is capable of that much self-examination.
Besides, you're supposed to up-vote comments you don't necessarily agree with so long as they are well argued. That is what a good debate is about.