Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN? • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by vaultboy21 » Fri, May 17, 2013, 3:35 PM UTC

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…

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.

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

#22

Post by ScottWhigham » Fri, May 17, 2013, 3:48 PM UTC

vaultboy21 wrote: post #20

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 petty of you to dismiss my point as being 'dramatic'.

No, sorry, that's not true. I wasn't the one who judged your original post - the one that was killed (by flagging) within minutes. Those people judged your post as hyperbole/dramatic/whatever you want to call it as well. I'm judging this specific post, however, and it is dramatic both in it's content and certainly in it's language. The title is just silly - "Can we have an honest discussion about abusive flagging on HN?" (italics mine). What other discussion would we have other than an honest one?

"Abusive" is just a word chosen for effect; misuse, while definitely being less dramatic, still implies that the community is doing something wrong. I don't think most of us feel that way. I think most of us old timers flag for different reasons than the newbies. My suspicion is that a lot of the older members (who also have high karma) flagged your original post for the reasons I've mentioned. If I'd seen it, I would've flagged it (as I've flagged this one).

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

#23

Post by DanBC » Fri, May 17, 2013, 6:58 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #16

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.

Yes, I agree. I do flag when discussion is toxic.