NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments • Hacker News Board

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#441

Post by DanBC » Thu, Aug 18, 2016, 11:45 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #440

mintplant wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, maybe you could explain the full backstory of why this post was killed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12313089 . I can explain it. It says right there that it was [flagged]. Enough people hit the "flag" link to automatically kill it.

That's the usual answer, but I think there may be more happening here than that. One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment. This made me wonder if there was a separate mechanism in play here. Out of self-interest, it also made me wonder if maybe my "vouching" privileges have been removed. Separately, although multiple flags can kill a comment, it's still subject to modera…

> One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment.

The vouch button appears for me.

> and on what basis they were flagging it.

I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who's previously had user flags (and a ban) for their posting style.

In particular:

>> the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed.

These comments tend to attract downvotes and flags because they're untrue. For one thing that post doesn't appear to have been killed, and if it had been killed it probably would have been user flags, not mods, that did the killing.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#442

Post by james-watson » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 12:25 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #438

james-watson wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of disparate claims you are making here without a central argument. No, I did not use sockpuppet accounts. Unlike fulltime moderators, I have things to do other than spend every hour of the day on HN to score political points. I only had one previous account, and it was banned as a result of that thread. As to your other questions, you are losing the forest for the trees. What I am saying is this: https…

I only had one previous account, and it was banned as a result of that thread. I appreciate the clear statement. My guess based on Dan's comments is that he thinks you are associated with other undisclosed accounts, and that this might explain some of the confusion as to what is acceptable discourse. As to your other questions, you are losing the forest for the trees. Possibly. Also possible that we are in different…

And with this thread, we have conclusively proven the assertion upthread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12309120).

Good day.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#443

Post by nkurz » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 12:30 AM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #441

nkurz wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the usual answer, but I think there may be more happening here than that. One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment. This made me wonder if there was a separate mechanism in play here. Out of self-interest, it also made me wonder if maybe my "vouching" privileges have been removed. Separately, although multiple flags can kill a comment, it's still subject to modera…

> One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment. The vouch button appears for me. > and on what basis they were flagging it. I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who's previously had user flags (and a ban) for their posting style. In particular: >> the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. These comments…

The vouch button appears for me.

Interesting. I might understand this now. To discourage retaliation (I think) both downvoting and flagging are not allowed for direct responses to one's own stories and comments. Since "vouch" was added late, it reuses the same logic, even though the "retaliatory vouching" is not really a danger.

I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who's previously had user flags (and a ban) for their posting style.

In the context of discussing perceived bias in moderation, I didn't find that particular comment to deliberately provocative. While context is important for interpretation, I think flagging (like vouching) should be done comment-by-comment rather than based on previous actions under a different account. Killing comments based on historic behavior makes "recovery from mistakes" more difficult, whether the mistake is on the part of the moderator or the poster.

It's also not clear to me exactly why the FD3SA account (should we consider this the same user for purposes of flagging?) was banned. He ('james-watson') believes it was because the content of the posts and not the style. I doubted this, and suspect he was banned due to his expressed intention "to return hostility in kind". While bans on this basis may be good policy, if this is true 'james-watson' would have a reasonable argument that this is punishment is indeed for thoughtcrime. As one of the targets, you are of course entitled to have your own interpretation.

For one thing that post doesn't appear to have been killed, and if it had been killed it probably would have been user flags, not mods, that did the killing.

I agree, and made the same point here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12315815. While this might be a good reason to downvote or rebut, I don't think that flagging is an appropriate response to factual inaccuracy.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#444

Post by tptacek » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 12:51 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #443

DanBC wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment. The vouch button appears for me. > and on what basis they were flagging it. I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who's previously had user flags (and a ban) for their posting style. In particular: >> the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. These comments…

The vouch button appears for me. Interesting. I might understand this now. To discourage retaliation (I think) both downvoting and flagging are not allowed for direct responses to one's own stories and comments. Since "vouch" was added late, it reuses the same logic, even though the "retaliatory vouching" is not really a danger. I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who…

I routinely flag drama. I didn't originally flag that comment, but I would have had I seen it before this part of the thread, because it's drama. The trend away from drama on this site in the modern Dan era of moderation is heartening, but we can always use less of it.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#445

Post by mintplant » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 1:19 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #443

DanBC wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One slight oddity is that there was no "vouch" button visible to me on the dead comment. The vouch button appears for me. > and on what basis they were flagging it. I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who's previously had user flags (and a ban) for their posting style. In particular: >> the original post which dang replied to and subsequently killed. These comments…

The vouch button appears for me. Interesting. I might understand this now. To discourage retaliation (I think) both downvoting and flagging are not allowed for direct responses to one's own stories and comments. Since "vouch" was added late, it reuses the same logic, even though the "retaliatory vouching" is not really a danger. I didn't flag it, but it contains some deliberately provocative phrasing from someone who…

> To discourage retaliation (I think) both downvoting and flagging are not allowed for direct responses to one's own stories and comments.

Yep, that's exactly right. Downvotes are also disabled for comments older than a certain time interval (IIRC it's currently 8 hours).

> Since "vouch" was added late, it reuses the same logic, even though the "retaliatory vouching" is not really a danger.

That may well be true, and enabling the "vouch" link for replies to one's own comments sounds like a good idea. You should email hn@ycombinator.com about it -- they're usually very responsive.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#446

Post by andrewmcwatters » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 2:11 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #394

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #22

You don't agree with it, so it's nonsense. Anything the left doesn't like has to be painted as absurdist. Better downvote him as well, so he can't downvote anyone with leftist views, keep that point distribution strong.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12305958 and marked it off-topic.

You should get rid of comments while you're at it.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#447

Post by hemmail » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 2:13 AM UTC

overcast wrote: post #170

This is an interesting move, and a topic I've been discussing with friends. I've stopped using sites like Reddit, because the comment sections are just toxic. I've gone as far as installing Chrome extensions that make comment sections disappear from popular sites like YouTube. It's too easy to get drawn into the negativity, and I'm completely over it. "Social Networking" has reached it's low point as far as I'm conce…

So true, there is maybe 10% comments of actual value anymore on reddit. The most valuable sources of info on the web used to be forums or comments, now there is very little. I used to search hackernews comments for useful info, but that is getting less and less. We really need a good place for expert info and opinions. Hopefully my friend working on a reddit like site, but with a whole new voting algorithm will help fill this void.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#448

Post by intended » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

gruyere wrote: post #430

intended wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe for the next community you need to figure out where it is in order to be self selected for membership.

I've had several people try to discern the meaning of your comment, but none of us could figure it out. You have words here that together sound like a sentence, but don't make any actual sense.

How's this:

Maybe for the next community, instead of making it public - potential users will instead have to find the site by solving a bunch of hidden puzzles. Think secret club.

Jokes aside: a major part of why HN works is that the community here self selects for several traits which ensure healthier communication.

As a forum becomes more mainstream, many things happen to attenuate the signal to noise ratio. (Pg had an excellent essay on the mid brow argument effect, which for many other forums is a problem they wish they had)

Eventually part of the crowd who came first realize it's not as useful anymore and decide to go somewhere else. The question is where.

We've seen eternal September come to almost every place and there's only a few traits which can help protect against it.

From my experience with many forums/modding, demographics are 80% of the issue, the remainder is topic of discussion, goal orientedness in discussion and moderator quality.

So the best solution is to create the forum and never advertise it. Let potential users figure out how to find it and how to get in.

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#449

Post by basch » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 2:54 AM UTC

edraferi wrote: post #294

basch wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it seems sites find it to complex to implement. slashdot nailed moderation, no one has attempted something similar. most systems are simple up/down vote or like/report i am also starting to wonder if the agegroup being hired to implement "social" for websites is now young enough to have missed slashdot in it s prime. the fact that people are still brainstorming from scratch instead of talking about how to improve sla…

> i am also starting to wonder if the agegroup being hired to implement "social" for websites is now young enough to have missed slashdot in it s prime. That's me! Can you explain the Slashdot model and why it worked? Or point to a good write up about it somewhere else?

I suggest reading the FAQ

https://slashdot.org/faq

especially all the Moderation, metamoderation, and Karma sections!!

Re: NPR Website to Get Rid of Comments

#450

Post by basch » Fri, Aug 19, 2016, 2:55 AM UTC

flomo wrote: post #329

edraferi wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> i am also starting to wonder if the agegroup being hired to implement "social" for websites is now young enough to have missed slashdot in it s prime. That's me! Can you explain the Slashdot model and why it worked? Or point to a good write up about it somewhere else?

Slashdot's method of scoring comments was overly complicated and probably did not produce any better results than reddit-style voting. However, Slashdot's killer feature was that the reader could filter by comment score and thus only read the 'good' comments, and not have to wade through hundreds of replies.

correct, they were better than reddit because they let the user sort based on their preference. slashdot generated a ton of metadata that described their content, and then gave you the power to intelligently utilize that metadata.