From my FizzBuzz comment: "I do not object to the broad points being made here." I am not dismissing anything, I am agreeing. I am then trying to add what I believe is a very important problem being missed -- that there are many valuable developers whose personalities mean they will do very badly on a timed paper-programming test in the midst of an interview. Testing of this kind is deeply unfair to them, and deceives the tester. I'm sorry if you feel that's not much of a value-add. I disagree.
Granted, in both of 2 and 3, there's a likelihood of you being voted down because it's a story about an entrepreneurial guy doing well, and you disagreeing with the legitimacy of what he's doing. This is a very entrepreneurial forum, so there's a bias against that.
It's difficult for me to imagine anyone reading those threads and missing that conclusion. It seems to me that it is the primary driver.
I'm not going to enter into a discussion that belongs on those other threads, I'm trying, as a relative long-timer to explain how I read your posts. Of course you think your posts are value adding, otherwise you wouldn't write them. I'm trying to explain why they might not be understood as such.
The fact that you write "I agree with the broad points" doesn't change the fact that your comment disagrees with the broad point (that FizzBuzz is a good and useful test). Also, the bit you quote seems unrelated to your concerns. How do you disagree with the interpretation that 40% passed the test? Any interview situation is "for an audience" and stressful. Not testing actual coding (rather that talky-talky skill) is deeply unfair to those many talented coders who are not great sales people.
For two and three, the comments are still not good ones, they're just further being ill-considered because of the bias. There are plenty of good comments that go against the bias of this site, but still get upvotes, because they're good.
I won't argue that other thread either, but we do have a good case about HN behavior that's on-topic here.
The broad point of the article was that FizzBuzz (still) reveals an amazing number of unqualified applicants. "Why, look what happens when we do FizzBuzz... You should too."
I did not disagree that FizzBuzz does that very thing. My objection was this: "Only 40% of programmers could correctly write out a FizzBuzz program on paper during our timed test in the middle of a job interview" is not equivalent to "Only 40% of applicants even have the skill to code FizzBuzz." The difference between the two is vital in a way many people here don't see, or at least won't acknowledge. That was the subject of my comment.
Maybe entrepreneurial types are fundamentally more at ease with that kind of thing than coders who aren't wired that way. I don't know how to enable you to see into that blind spot. I could try, in a meaningful back-and-forth with those who disagree with me. But to simply dismiss my initial objection outright, as something that doesn't even belong in the conversation? To employ HN moderation that sidelines it so it won't be seen? That leaves nowhere to begin.
I value being able to argue with intelligent, tech-minded people who disagree with me. It matters so much to me that there be an online venue like HN to meet unfamiliar points of view, to test my own biases, to figure out how I actually see things by engaging in meaningful debate. But we can't have such a low tolerance for disagreement and for challenges to biases that a whiff of a problem with someone's tone makes that person's words seem "mean." We can't be so quick to silence people at square one just because we don't (yet) see their point.
Please believe me that this is sincere and not pedantic. I just want to be clear: When you compare the first set of three comments above with the second, you really see the first as more valuable to HN than the second? Let's agree that no submission or comment is going to be all bad or all good and that we won't quibble about details. On balance, you would say the second set is unwelcome when compared with the first?
> My objection was this: "Only 40% of programmers could correctly write out a FizzBuzz program on paper during our timed test in the middle of a job interview" is not equivalent to "Only 40% of applicants even have the skill to code FizzBuzz."
OK. You made that point very poorly. I only understood that now. Also, I disagree, but that's offtopic here.
You were not downvoted because you made an unpopular point, or because people disagrees with you. You weren't "silenced". Understand that. There is an extremely high tolerance for disagreement here, but it has to be well phrased and well argued.
You were downvoted because you made your point very poorly, so it read like an argumentation-void grasping at a strawman. I'm completely willing to accept that wasn't how you meant it to come out, but it's your responsibility, and only yours, that your comment comes across as intended.
I never responded to the first three comments - they were upvoted because you hit a popular vein in that particular discussion. That's pretty common. By the way, here's one for challenging the bias on this site: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4827567 - it's got 53 points. It's not a particular well written or insightful comment, it's a fairly trivial anecdote that happens to contain the magic word "YC". It's probably one of my all-time highest scoring comments, to think that means it's the best depresses me. A lot.
Granted, in both of 2 and 3, there's a likelihood of you being voted down because it's a story about an entrepreneurial guy doing well, and you disagreeing with the legitimacy of what he's doing. This is a very entrepreneurial forum, so there's a bias against that.
It's difficult for me to imagine anyone reading those threads and missing that conclusion. It seems to me that it is the primary driver.