Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alt.techcrunch.die.die.die

adnam.motd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Alt.techcrunch.die.die.die

#51

Post by alaskamiller »

Prrometheus wrote: post #45
alaskamiller wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mashable sucks a lot, their posts are just derivative of whatever PR piece is sent to their email. They implemented a social network to get them more pageviews but it's now turned into a porn den. VentureBeat started out by just reporting VC money and so on but switched. I liked him when he was with Mercury News but I haven't really been visiting his site as the other ones pretty much covers it. Allen Stern wants to…

>They implemented a social network to get them more pageviews but it's now turned into a porn den. The story of the internet.

Where's my $15 billion valuation?

Re: Alt.techcrunch.die.die.die

#52

Post by adrianwaj »

pg wrote: post #18

This is the top story on Hacker News? Embarrassing. Should I add downvotes on stories, for users over a certain karma threshold?

You risk a 'bury brigade' forming as seen at Digg. Maybe make the downmod arrows randomly provided to random people?

Re: Alt.techcrunch.die.die.die

#53

Post by icky »

icey wrote: post #48
icky wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. One thing you might also try is allow the top n posters (nickb and company?) to enable downvoting on certain articles, whereupon the rest of us can pile on if we like.

How does that differ from allowing nickb et al to just bury an article? I can assure you, if some articles have downmodding available and others do not, those articles will be insta-gibbed off of the front few pages.

It would allow an article to remain if it has overwhelming popular support.

Re: Alt.techcrunch.die.die.die

#54

Post by iamdave »

pg wrote: post #18

This is the top story on Hacker News? Embarrassing. Should I add downvotes on stories, for users over a certain karma threshold?

The thing that scares me already with the current system is seeing completely reasonable comments being downvoted simply because someone disagrees with the argument, and not on the merit or value it adds to the conversation. On a much larger scale, I can't say what this will do to submissions; it's possible someone will post a completely appropriate blog entry that's more of an editorial than a report or product review, only to end up receiving numerous downvotes because of a differing opinion.

But I'm with everyone else when I say to give it a trial period and see how it goes. It's the only equitable way to see how things will work out.

Re: Alt.techcrunch.die.die.die

#55

Post by natrius »

pg wrote: post #18

This is the top story on Hacker News? Embarrassing. Should I add downvotes on stories, for users over a certain karma threshold?

Make users' votes on stories public. Presumably, the purpose of upvotes is to indicate that a story will be of value to other readers. If that's the case, users should be willing to put their names behind their suggestion. Users will theoretically be less willing to vote for stories that other people won't find useful.

This solution doesn't scale, but it's quicker to implement than giving a higher weight to the votes of people who have voted for editor-selected good stories in the past. I don't like downvotes on anything.

Re: Alt.techcrunch.die.die.die

#58

Post by [deleted] »

kyro wrote: post #50
adnam wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, and I wrote the damned thing.

Since you seem in support of having a down arrow, and you never really intended to get your article to the front page, then what that says is that you were less concerned about submitting something of value than you were about promoting your writing. You shouldn't have submitted it in the first place. Either that or you just wrote the piece knowing that it'd appeal to the growing anti-arrington/tc sentiment here, so…

[deleted]

Re: Alt.techcrunch.die.die.die

#59

Post by Hexstream »

kyro wrote: post #50
adnam wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, and I wrote the damned thing.

Since you seem in support of having a down arrow, and you never really intended to get your article to the front page, then what that says is that you were less concerned about submitting something of value than you were about promoting your writing. You shouldn't have submitted it in the first place. Either that or you just wrote the piece knowing that it'd appeal to the growing anti-arrington/tc sentiment here, so…

I don't think relying solely on everyone's ability to restrain themselves is very reliable.

Especially since the ones you'd wish they restrained themselves the most are usually those less able to do so. (as an extreme example, ask a spammer to avoid spamming you...)

Post reply on HN