Cletus got 418 of you with this one
Untitled topic
91–100 of 101 posts
Re: undefined
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta-discussions can be tiresome, but communities die if content is chosen strictly by popularity. Some moderation must be applied, and the most important things to moderate are the things that are popular but subtly undermine the site's purpose. In this particular case the poster is being very reasonable: no lame submissions. "Joel on Coal" is a good example. That might have been funny as h*ll back when Joel was blo…
Meta-discussions can be tiresome Why? Let's talk about this. EDIT: I wonder if there's an analogy here for democracies and recent US legislation: the most important things to moderate are the things that are popular but subtly undermine the site's purpose. (Oh noes! I've added politics to a meta-discussion! [dons asbestos long johns and ducks])
Meta-discussions can be tiresome
Why? Let's talk about this.
MetaFilter (one of the longest-running communities on the web) has a policy where all meta talk goes to a separate silo (MetaTalk) so that discussions on actual topics don't get derailed. StackOverflow does the same thing.
A good idea for HN?
Re: undefined
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also very unambitious. Life's also about working to get what you want, then enjoying what you wanted so much, then realizing that you wanted something more, and then working harder to get that as well.
True. But if during that process you are always by default happy with what you have at any given moment, then you can't lose.
If you are always happy with what you have, then, by definition, you don't want anything else. As much as I would love to be happy, the way I see it, if you are always happy, you have already lost. Unless, of course, you have already made your billions.
Re: undefined
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no lame submissions Why not? What's so bad about them? A submission is are only annoying if it is upvoted often enough, but then, there are obviously enough people out there who don't find it "lame". So saying "don't post lame submissions" is essentially the same as saying "don't post submissions which I personally don't like".
I'm sorry you got some downvotes, because what you're asking about is interesting: Am I merely saying "Don't post stuff I don't like?" I don't think that I'm asking people not to post stuff I don't like. For one think I like some of the stuff I'm asking people not to post. Yes, I like lame jokes. I don't think "lame" and "dislike" are strongly correlated. If people upvote something, it could be popular yet lame in so…
I get what you're saying, and I agree. I happen to love a lot of the funny one-line comments on Reddit. They're often hilarious. And on Reddit, they get massively upvoted, whereas here we don't like them (). But in general, the spirit of HN is to only* post things which are intellectually interesting for hackers.
But on this specific day, which is a "holiday" in some sense, I think it's alright to submit jokes. That's because a lot of us members who use HN as their only (tech) news source, do want to see these posts. And it's only for one day, anyway. Analogy - on other holidays, or on other special occasions, things to do with the occasion come up a lot. Honestly this is just from memory, but I'm guessing that on Christmas, there are plenty of threads with holiday greetings and wishes, resolutions for New Year's, etc. Even though many people here (including me) don't celebrate Christmas, I don't think there's anything wrong with special occasions "clouding" the home page.
* By the way, the fact that Reddit-style one-liners are usually downvoted shows that the spirit here is still pretty much the old HN spirit. No "moderation" necessary, the community usually does its part.
Re: undefined
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
> no lame submissions Why not? What's so bad about them? A submission is are only annoying if it is upvoted often enough, but then, there are obviously enough people out there who don't find it "lame". So saying "don't post lame submissions" is essentially the same as saying "don't post submissions which I personally don't like".
The assumption "Lots of people want to see it, therefore it is worthy" is false on its face. Lots of people want to see "Barney & Friends," but it is not appropriate for must venues — the people who want to see it are almost exclusively children. If your postulate were correct, we would all just be on Slashdot and Digg, since people have always been able to vote there and thus the exact same content would be on top i…
I think the only (scalable) way to ensure that is to only bring "good" people into HN. After all, if you want a scalable solution, the community has to be self-moderating to some degree. And if you can't trust "the masses" on the site, then you can't trust the moderation. The only solution that makes sense is to only bring good people into the community.
HN does this in a few ways:
1. Most people finding HN find it through pg's articles and through Y Combinator, which already means they're probably alright.
2. HN's loop works well. We only discuss interesting things, downvote comments don't say anything intelligent, even if they're funny jokes, etc. Therefore, people who aren't interested in intelligent conversations find somewhere else to go. Keeping HN alive and kicking.
Re: undefined
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Life isn't about what you get - it's about enjoying what you get. This is a superb axiom to live by.
It's also very unambitious. Life's also about working to get what you want, then enjoying what you wanted so much, then realizing that you wanted something more, and then working harder to get that as well.
I want what I have.
Re: undefined
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
True. But if during that process you are always by default happy with what you have at any given moment, then you can't lose.
If you are always happy with what you have, then, by definition, you don't want anything else. As much as I would love to be happy, the way I see it, if you are always happy, you have already lost. Unless, of course, you have already made your billions.
I'm happy now. I imagine I'd be more happy if I had more stuff/cash, for some definition of happy. Therefore it's good now and it only gets better.
The problem starts when you decide that you don't have enough, and this makes you unhappy. Then you pursue the stuff thinking it'll make you happy. Starting from that viewpoint, I don't think it ever will.
Re: undefined
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Life isn't about what you get - it's about enjoying what you get. This is a superb axiom to live by.
It's also very unambitious. Life's also about working to get what you want, then enjoying what you wanted so much, then realizing that you wanted something more, and then working harder to get that as well.
I wish I could down vote this.
Re: undefined
#99Can we also skip the submissions asking people not to post things instead of just letting the community decide the same way it's been done for years?
Meta-discussions can be tiresome, but communities die if content is chosen strictly by popularity. Some moderation must be applied, and the most important things to moderate are the things that are popular but subtly undermine the site's purpose. In this particular case the poster is being very reasonable: no lame submissions. "Joel on Coal" is a good example. That might have been funny as h*ll back when Joel was blo…
but communities die if content is chosen strictly by popularity
Too much melodrama from everyone. Lame April Fools 'news' is created and submitted every year, we all know it's coming, so maybe just avoid discussion sites for a day and move on.
Re: undefined
#100Can we also skip the submissions asking people not to post things instead of just letting the community decide the same way it's been done for years?
[deleted]