Positive comments that don't "add any value" are heavily discouraged on HN. Unless you have some deep expertise or experience that you can use to expand on the article, it's usually best to not comment.

Negative comments that don't add value are not viewed the same way for some reason.

It's also much, much easier to be against something than to be for something.

All you need to do is find some flaw or imperfection, comment on it, and so long as you're not wrong... you'll at least be counted amongst those making valid observations; even if what you're pointing out isn't fatal to the proposition or fails to win the big picture case.

Making a positive assertion however is much more difficult. You have to not only find a valid observation but then be convincing that the supporting observation makes a compelling case in favor of the proposition; perhaps with supporting evidence, etc.

So a flaw can stand on its own and be factually true, but a supporting argument must be part of a larger framework of support to have meaning. And I'm not so sure this is wrong by itself. Positive statements and assertions should have solid foundations to win the day.

Where I think we go wrong is we allow the negative arguments win the day for an opposing position. We let the ease of someone making a negative argument confuse us into thinking that person's opposing proposition is right and is so doing we fall into the trap of false alternatives. Current public discourse, speaking in the US, has taken this problem to the extreme. Activists come out against one thing or another, often times with legitimate complaints and gain public support in their opposition... but then get away with translating that shared opposition into support for a different idea without having ever had to make the positive argument in favor of it.

A critic can be correct in making a criticism... but that doesn't make them right.

On the other hand I view a comment after down-vote with the reason, crucial for constructive criticism.

That makes sense. Downvotes here seem to be more meaningful than in most other forums.

I haven’t read the article yet, so I will not comment on it directly. I was recently very demotivated in my work and started reading the book “Deep Work” and the concept really helped me get back on track. I think the concept of deep work is not only very beneficial for knowledge workers, but also essential to our long term well being. Because of the book, I was able to make changes in my work, life and personal priorities and I’m far, far happier and less stressed. Ignoring the importance of deep work (to use the articles title), is a recipe for burnout and disatisfaction. If I had been dismissive and passed the book over, when it was recommended to me, I’d still be stuck in a rut, on the brink of burnout and likely heading towards depression.

That's often the case with HN posts. I think people find an article valuable they simply upvote, but if people don't find an article valuable they leave a comment explaining why.

There's only a handful of HN moderators and it's unlikely they have the time to worry about that.

What's your reasoning?

"I agree" adds little to the conversation. "I disagree and here's why" adds more, and is more emotionally satisfying to write.

Though it's not uncommon to see posts of the "I agree, and here's an anecdote as to why" variety getting heavily upvoted, but those are harder to write, and so less frequent.

Middlebrow dismissals are popular on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072224

Mine[0] wasn't "dismissive or derogatory." In fact, I clearly complimented the author.

I just mentioned that I have a personal aspect (not actually an advantage, at times), that sort of gives me the same thing.

I realize that people that are heavily invested in orthodoxies can sometimes consider all "non-positive" feedback to be "derogatory," but that's on them.

There's a lot of really good, decent, intelligent, skilled people in this world, and the vast majority of them manage to be that way without any mentoring from me. I applaud and support them; but I also won't insist that they meet my personal bars, and will push back, if they insist that I meet theirs (not all the time -sometimes, they have every right to expect me to meet their bar. This is not one of those times).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23846545

Yes, there are a lot more neutral to positive comments now (including yours, which wasn't posted yet when I made my original observation). I am glad to see a more balanced discussion on what seems to be a well-liked article, as judged by votes.

Upvoting is an easier way to "bookmark" a submission than it is to "favorite" it. Favoriting requires clicking into the comments first.

People who care enough to comment on the title (ha) or add comments are an overlapping group.

>How does this happen? Is it just easier to leave a negative comment than to say something meaningful if you enjoyed the article?

For one, posts are often upvoted based on their title/subject, and only afterwards are read and evaluated for their content.

What is that based on? Anecdotally the folks around me right now agree a common flow is:

1. See hn link.

2. Go directly to comments.

3. Top comment is seen as counter argument to the article.

4. Discuss on premise defined by top comment (not article).

Unless there’s a way to safe for sure (ex HN weighs in with analytic data) it’s all speculation.

An upvote of a comment, too.