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

Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

#11

Post by vaultboy21 »

DanBC wrote: post #4

You say that flagging is only for spam. It isn't. Flagging is for things that don't belong on HN. Some things are obviously not suitable for HN. Somethings are obviously suitable for HN. The tricky area is things that start off being suitable for HN, but then quickly collapse into mindless bickering. There are some words that act as triggers to poor discussion. I proudly flag threads full of bickering. You should too…

well then that's part of the problem..

i don't want to turn this into a battle of fanboys, but i have a hard time believing a post titled "Microsoft to Google: Remove something as it violates something.." would have been so heavily flagged or sparked such negative discussions..

what became apparent to me, from both reading the comments and seeing how the post was handled, was it did collapse into mindless bickering, but mainly because people rushed to 'defend' the company they feel more loyal to..

all i'm saying is flagging shouldn't be used as a weapon in such bickering.

Re: Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

#12

Post by vaultboy21 »

DanBC wrote: post #10
vaultboy21 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thanks for the actual rankings numbers - that would have saved me some time.. and i agree that thread got pretty unpleasant and i think it highlights another side of the same problem as it shows how people who may not like the particular issue furiously attack those who do (and likewise in reverse). i really believe if one made-up a similar post and reversed the roles between the two companies the reaction would have…

> good exchange of thoughts that came come-out of it. I don't flag threads if there's good discussion in them. I do flag threads that collapse into unpleasant nastiness. I downvote some of the worst examples of unpleasantness too. It's very easy to say that people flag a thread just because it has positive coverage of companyA or negative coverage of companyB - and maybe that does happen - but the HN mechanisms are o…

clearly people flag for different reasons. that just bolsters my point that there should be an examination of flagging behaviour and some clarification around how its meant to be used, if need be, and potentially some adjustments to prevent occurrences such as when "people flag a thread just because it has positive coverage of companyA or negative coverage of companyB"

Re: Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

#13

Post by ScottWhigham »

i believe this apparent abuse of the spam ‘flagging’ feature on HN is seriously detrimental to the community.

Like DanBC said, flagging is just for spam. And really - "abuse" is just hyperbole, isn't it? And while we're talking about hyperbole, your whole title is just flag-worthy for the dramatics alone.

If, for example, a post gets 447 upvotes, how many flags constitute "flagging abuse" in your mind? For something to get 447 upvotes means that (a) a large portion of the community saw the headline, and (b) a large portion of the community read the article (or at least part). What makes you think that it is "abuse" if a portion of said Group B decided to flag it as "off topic" or "bad journalism" (or whatever - I didn't flag it but, like others have said, I can see how and why some people would)?

You're acting as though flagging should have no weight on ranking. Why not make your case and put up a poll in a new thread? I'd suggest leaving out a fair bit of the dramatics you've created this post with though...

Re: Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

#14

Post by vaultboy21 »

ColinWright wrote: post #7
simba-hiiipower wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

..i think one of the reasons the thread got so toxic was over the (apparently true) allegations that the post was being heavily flagged - and early on. according to op (of original thread) it appears that the flagging occurred almost immediately, so the argument that some may be flagging due to the toxic nature of the thread doesn't make much sense to me.

According to the record of rankings provided above it was over an hour before it got flagged enough to affect its rank.

its still odd behaviour.. look at any similar post (in terms of age/activity) and you can clearly see that one stands-out as odd. here's one that looks to follow a more typical progression - http://hnrankings.info/5719667/

also from making it near the top [rank 3 / 22:30-22:45] it rapidly fell close to the bottom of the front page [rank 22 / 23:10].. that's a pretty quick decline.

Re: Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

#15

Post by ScottWhigham »

vaultboy21 wrote: post #2

..i posted this yesterday under a diferent account but it was apparently removed, almost immediately. hopefully the same doesn't happen again. edit: for convenience, clickable link to image above http://i.imgur.com/ZCR2hun.jpg

I'd almost guarantee that, if you posted the same thing (title + content), it was flagged like crazy (and that's why it was gone so quickly). I remember reading that the flag system weights flags heavier that are received within x minutes of the article being posted. In other words, if an article gets two flags in 20 minutes that may be fine. But if another article gets two flags in the first minute, it will be killed (or something to that effect).

This title and this post - it's just full of overly dramatic language choices. Make your case like a normal person and see how the community reacts to that.

Re: Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

#16

Post by brudgers »

DanBC wrote: post #4

You say that flagging is only for spam. It isn't. Flagging is for things that don't belong on HN. Some things are obviously not suitable for HN. Somethings are obviously suitable for HN. The tricky area is things that start off being suitable for HN, but then quickly collapse into mindless bickering. There are some words that act as triggers to poor discussion. I proudly flag threads full of bickering. You should too…

"Flagging is for things that don't belong on HN."

Flagging is for flagging. Things that don't belong on HN are part of it. Redundant articles and bad discussions are others.

Even bad moods are a relevant reason to flag an article. HN is better if flagging is used to express strong emotion than toxic posting.

Re: Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

#17

Post by dangrossman »

Most things about Microsoft get flagged off (even a not-very-positive review of the Surface Pro tablet yesterday, which had lots of comments). Most every submission about the Marketplace Fairness Act ('internet sales tax') were also flagged numerous times despite no real bickering in the comments; some people really don't want it discussed at all for some reason.

Re: Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

#18

Post by ColinWright »

vaultboy21 wrote: post #14
ColinWright wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the record of rankings provided above it was over an hour before it got flagged enough to affect its rank.

its still odd behaviour.. look at any similar post (in terms of age/activity) and you can clearly see that one stands-out as odd. here's one that looks to follow a more typical progression - http://hnrankings.info/5719667/ also from making it near the top [rank 3 / 22:30-22:45] it rapidly fell close to the bottom of the front page [rank 22 / 23:10].. that's a pretty quick decline.

This is behavior I've seen before. A rapid rise, staying high in the rankings for a but, then getting a few flags to take it to the bottom of the front page, or the top of the second page. A few more upvotes to get it back on the front page, normal declining with age and/or upvotes intermingled with the occasional flag, then getting hammered.

It's usually on long, unpleasant and angry exchanges that I see this behavior on, and I'm not at all surprised.

Re: Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

#19

Post by brudgers »

HN is statefull. The software manages it with user input. Sometimes HN even gets managed at the REPL.

The system isn't designed to be perfectly fair. It's designed to work, not to be purely functional. Anyway, there is no objective measure of merit for any submission or comment.

As CollinWright says, he would have flagged the thread because of the tenor of the discussion. This is not flagging the article or killing the story. It's taking the discussion off the front page.

Re: Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

#20

Post by vaultboy21 »

ScottWhigham wrote: post #13

i believe this apparent abuse of the spam ‘flagging’ feature on HN is seriously detrimental to the community. Like DanBC said, flagging is just for spam. And really - "abuse" is just hyperbole, isn't it? And while we're talking about hyperbole, your whole title is just flag-worthy for the dramatics alone. If, for example, a post gets 447 upvotes, how many flags constitute "flagging abuse" in your mind? For something…

from: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

..the guidelines clearly specify flagging is for spam or off-topic posts. i generally define 'abuse' as utilizing a feature for something that its not intended for, such as burying a story one does not agree with.

saying its 'off topic' is total bs. issues involving standards, ip, public access, etc.. (also, involving two of the largest tech companies, the mobile space, a popular web-based product, etc...), seem to be very relevant around here and frequently come-up.

so.. this wasn't spam or off-topic, yet shows heavy flag activity. that indicates abuse to me. would 'misuse' be better? - its petty of you to dismiss my point as being 'dramatic'. i attempted to frame the issue as i saw it, using the evidence i was able to scrape-together, and tried to avoid making generalizations or turning it into a 'hn hates microsoft' or whatever as i'm sure this happens often, but this case highlighted it most clearly, and most recently..

Post reply on HN