Live data from Hacker News

Please read the paper before you comment

buttondown.email

231–240 of 341 posts

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#231
Whilst I sympathize with why this person is ranting, I find it kind of funny. People act the way they do on social media due to a mix of the design of social media, and human nature. It's not complete chance that twitter has an entire underclass of people who just yell vitriol at the blue checkmark brigade. It's not chance that reddit divides itself into lots of echo-chambers that are essentially repeating the same handful of opinions in various different colours (in reddit's defence this can be avoided using extremely hands-on moderation).

Fundamentally, there aren't too many people who can meaningfully comment on most papers. The alternative to commenting before reading the paper is almost certainly reading the paper and then not commenting because you don't really have much to add. So let's assume some people do start reading the articles? Well, they're just going to say less. There's a thousand ways to have an easy and wrong take on a paper. If you want good reasoned discussion about papers you're better off looking elsewhere - for example, The Weeds podcast from Vox, where they actually take a white paper, read it, think about it and discuss its implications. You can disagree with them and talk about how effective they are at engaging with the topic (or as is often the case you can get irrationally angry because you don't like their politics), but fundamentally it's a much better venue for having that sort of nuanced and informed discussion than 140 characters at a time mixed in with the sewer that is twitter.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dead, really? Maybe it was the lmgtfy link that tripped the modbot. > if it's not as easy as social media, it won't get the adoption these days. I think that is backwards. Starting a blog is as easy as starting a Facebook account. The problem is that a blog does not give you the "engagement" of a social network and therefore can not compete for your attention against the very fine-tuned engagement machines of Faceboo…

Yes you're right, the engagement is the most important part. It's not the ease of creating the site, it's the ease of directing people to view / subscribe / communicate through & return to it & that is a very difficult problem to solve if you do not simply approach as a standard social network. I guess to me there's a niche for smaller scale networks, which would suit those with lesser engagement needs. Most people w…

> view / subscribe / communicate

You can still comment and subscribe on a blog, can't you? RSS is dead is only a figure of speech.

You can still have a blogroll on your site, can't you? Remember FOAF? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOAF_(ontology)

My point is that we don't need to wish for a "Social network with less features". We just need to embrace technology that already exists and that has been ignored by big tech because they don't have much to gain by adopting it.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#233
post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciated your joke

Thanks. Based upon the comments and downvotes no one else did, but honestly I'm not surprised.

Sorry. I seem to miss dry humor a lot in person and humor is more challenging online.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#234
post #48

Some years ago, Ars Technica ran a story on guns. https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lot... About halfway through a one-page article was this quote. "If you have read this far, please mention Bananas in your comment below. We're pretty sure 90% of the respondants to this story won't even read it first." Sure enough, there were about 3 pages of comments before someone mentioned bananas. Read the…

I did a similar thing with recruiting ads, I added a line of "If you are interested in this role, please reach out to me starting with 'Heyyyyyy I am XXX', thanks!" in the middle of the JD. And I simply ignore 99% of the reach out because they didn't start with that line. It's just like the brown M&m thing Van Halen did. Works way better than I expected.

You've likely passed over some exceptionaly talented employees that you could have hired because of this pretentious scheme of yours.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a third of the title is enough, never mind the aticle ;) depends on the topic, an article isn't going to convince a political party supporter to switch sides for example.

>an article isn't going to convince a political party supporter to switch sides for example // Why not? Are you suggesting articles can't carry information that changes peoples opinions; that people are wedded too much to Party identity; or perhaps that only one article wouldn't do it?

It should be able to change someone's mind if that person were rational, open minded and the article contained some very revealing information. It should.

...But it won't, not in today's American politics. There's no nuance left, it's us versus _them_, entrenched political warfare. If the article says something bad about my party it's either: _fake news!_ or a smear campaign by _them_! If it says something good about their party it's ____-wing propaganda.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#237

The key to cleaning up my Twitter feed was to unfollow people who were too good at Twitter. That is: People who are working to maximize engagement, follower count, retweets, and likes. In my feed, the highest signal to noise ratio comes from people who aren't commenting on any and every trending topic. Instead, they're busy doing real work, away from Twitter, only occasionally checking in to share something. Likewise…

I have no idea how to do Twitter well. I have a serious medical condition and other issues and I spend most of my time basically trying to distract myself from the misery of my life and I sometimes spend all day on Twitter and sometimes don't look at it for weeks at a time. Thank you for this observation.

I have heard of folks on twitter with huge follower-counts who use the medium as a form of one-way communication: they don't look at replies or mentions and have DMs turned off. That seems to be the best way to use it in my opinion.

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly comment sections on the internet are a cesspool A bit offtopic, but when YouTube first added comments, they quickly got into cesspool territory, exactly like you describe. However, these days, I find myself really enjoying YouTube comments quite often. Is this just me? Am I just watching more happy happy joy joy videos these days or did YT comments go from "the internet's awfulest" to "pretty neat" somehow…

It might have to do with there being real identities linked to them now from Google+, which many say was the main purpose of the project; not to mention the improved recommendation engine and upvotes, etc.

> It might have to do with there being real identities linked to them now from Google+, which many say was the main purpose of the project; not to mention the improved recommendation engine and upvotes, etc.

But the migration of YouTube channels and comments to G+ linked identities was reversed[0], wasn't it? Not to mention that G+ has since been shut down.

Shouldn't that make the abortive effort irrelevant for the quality of YouTube comments today?

[0] https://googleblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/everything-in-its-ri...

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#239
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always read job listings top to bottom, but I would never in my life send out an email in a professional setting starting with "Heyyyyyyyy". I don't think this idea of yours is as clever as you imagine it to be

if you were explicitly asked to, why not?

People are explicitly asked to wear masks too ...

Re: Please read the paper before you comment

#240
post #48

Some years ago, Ars Technica ran a story on guns. https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04/guns-in-the-home-lot... About halfway through a one-page article was this quote. "If you have read this far, please mention Bananas in your comment below. We're pretty sure 90% of the respondants to this story won't even read it first." Sure enough, there were about 3 pages of comments before someone mentioned bananas. Read the…

> Sure enough, there were about 3 pages of comments before someone mentioned bananas.

Maybe people just didn't want to play their stupid game and didn't mention bananas even if they'd seen the message?

Post reply on HN