101–110 of 179 posts
I'm color blind, and those colors look very similar to me. I could not tell if it was green or red or something else. Please use something like blue and red.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are enough bad-faith commenters on HN that I personally would find this very useful.
asking this out of curiosity due to recent reflection on similar - what's stopping us simply not responding to those arguing in bad faith ?
- like it is literally trained on some data set to identify posts that are trying to bait people into commenting on them and simply hide such posts.
- the world would be a far better place if we had such an extension
That's weird, I'm reading HN every day and never felt a need for something like that. In my experience, the quality of comments is very high and really bad ones tend to be downvoted or flagged fast. Could this be a time zone issue such that people in certain time zones are less fortunate than others?
On the other hand, there are a number of things I'm not very informed about, and I do frequently find a few posters in those threads who seem to have very insightful things to say, but I'm not sure if they actually are (sometimes you can tell from replies) or if it's just because I'm a neophyte.
Which all goes to say I don't know if this system would really help, or would just turn into bad opinions getting even more support because the crowd-sourcing is coming from others who don't have the necessary expertise to evaluate what's worth listening to.
I’d encourage a change of labels away from “friend/foe”. It may seem minor but the subtle loaded nature of those paired terms encourages an adversarial stance rather than one of productive discourse. It’s not catchy so there’s probably better than this but, just as an example— “engage/ignore” could better signal to the user a neutral “do I want to bother with this person?”