Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing • Hacker News Board

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#91

Post by pekk » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:35 AM UTC

saurik wrote: post #72

pekk wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sensationalized, misleading titles are not helpful.

This, also, is not useful to point out every time an article title ends in a question mark. I'm not advocating for articles with titles that end in question marks, only that there is no value in reflexively pointing out "this article's title ends in a question mark" every time it happens: Bettridge's law of headlines exists, the point has been made, and even to the people who haven't heard about it, it doesn't give t…

The use of that comment is to point out and perhaps penalize a form of manipulation which hurts discourse, the sensationalized headline.

This is valid in the same way that it is valid to point out when a headline contains a false and self-serving claim.

I don't think anybody is under the slightest illusion that having heard of Betteridge's law demonstrates any particular intelligence.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#92

Post by DanBC » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:36 AM UTC

gedrap wrote: post #19

moomin wrote: post #4

Cliches like this are OK. What really annoys me is that the top rated comment is invariably a straight-forward contradiction of the original article's thesis. Like this comment here.

There is nothing wrong with a top comment being a contradiction. I believe that in this way, it might bring even more useful comments and thoughts since it takes a different angle. The real problem is that those contradicting comments usually are plain simple negative (not to be confused with criticism, which is alright, I am referring to the grumpy negative ones), demotivating.

There's nothing wrong with useful critique or argument. But as others have said it's very easy to dash off a very quick rebuttal of a minor point in an article, ignoring the main thrust of whatever the article is about.

When I've read six pages of interesting and useful article it's depressing to see the top voted comment on HN is about a footnote on page 4 with little relevance to anything interesting.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#93

Post by ilyanep » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:37 AM UTC

Oh no. Is Hacker News going to start down the ever-descending death spiral of angst that made parts of reddit so unbearable to me (until the angst became a self-fulfilling prophecy)?

Many of these classes of comments are fairly reasonable in many cases (as discussed in the rest of the comments here), and I really hope that we're not about to begin the cycle of "I hate this place, it used to be so much better" that seems to start up when Internet communities mature when I just got here.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#94

Post by asdashopping » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:37 AM UTC

Another thing that annoys me is people citing articles using numbered references beginning with 0 ([0][1]...)

I can maybe understand the point of using numbered references like this (although honestly it barely affects readability having links inline) but you're not a computer. It just comes across as pretentious when you start counting at 0 as though you're referencing an array of references or something. We get that you Know Computers.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#95

Post by lclarkmichalek » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:38 AM UTC

k__ wrote: post #8

moomin wrote: post #4

Cliches like this are OK. What really annoys me is that the top rated comment is invariably a straight-forward contradiction of the original article's thesis. Like this comment here.

Is there already a law for this? I would love this to be called "Moomin's Law"

I've seen a version on Reddit:

    Law of Reddit XCVII:
    You can make a redditor believe anything, no matter how outlandish, so  long as you preface it with "Contrary to what you hear in the MSM...."

But I guess that's a tad more specific than generic second opinion bias, which is what we see here

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#96

Post by bjourne » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:40 AM UTC

saurik wrote: post #62

anigbrowl wrote: post #18

[citation needed] - This isn't Wikipedia, so skip the passive-aggressive comments. If you think something's wrong, explain why. The reason to post this is not so much thinking the comment is necessarily wrong as that it makes an extraordinary or absolutist claim absent any evidence, which if accepted as fact is going to change the shape of the whole discussion...perhaps appropriately, but the onus is on the person ma…

The "citation needed" thing is pulled out any time people disagree, however, even when the comment is something where a source could be found rapidly using Google. It is not the onus of someone in a friendly discussion to have to anally cite every comment they make that involves some random fact: instead, it should be the onus of every person involved in the discussion to keep an open mind and do some due diligence.…

Shrug. Most of the "citation needed" posts I've seen are in response to comments like "almost all recipients of welfare spend it on smokes and alcohol." There probably doesn't exist any studies that disproves that vague claim. Yet whoever posts it shouldn't be allowed to get away with it, hence "citation needed."

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#97

Post by lake99 » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:40 AM UTC

saurik wrote: post #62

anigbrowl wrote: post #18

[citation needed] - This isn't Wikipedia, so skip the passive-aggressive comments. If you think something's wrong, explain why. The reason to post this is not so much thinking the comment is necessarily wrong as that it makes an extraordinary or absolutist claim absent any evidence, which if accepted as fact is going to change the shape of the whole discussion...perhaps appropriately, but the onus is on the person ma…

The "citation needed" thing is pulled out any time people disagree, however, even when the comment is something where a source could be found rapidly using Google. It is not the onus of someone in a friendly discussion to have to anally cite every comment they make that involves some random fact: instead, it should be the onus of every person involved in the discussion to keep an open mind and do some due diligence.…

anigbrowl is talking about "[making] an extraordinary or absolutist claim absent any evidence", and you're talking about "even when the comment is something where a source could be found rapidly using Google". These are not comparable cases, and so, I guess I don't see how your comment really addresses anigbrowl's. This is what I see. anigbrowl: there are cases where it's appropriate. You: it shouldn't be used everywhere.

There is this (subjective) notion of relevance. When it's relevant, a simple [citation needed] communicates a lot more than merely these words.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#98

Post by shurcooL » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:43 AM UTC

I have _never_ seen the 7 of 9 of those comments here. "FTFY" stuff is from reddit.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#99

Post by ordinary » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:47 AM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #55

anigbrowl wrote: post #18

[citation needed] - This isn't Wikipedia, so skip the passive-aggressive comments. If you think something's wrong, explain why. The reason to post this is not so much thinking the comment is necessarily wrong as that it makes an extraordinary or absolutist claim absent any evidence, which if accepted as fact is going to change the shape of the whole discussion...perhaps appropriately, but the onus is on the person ma…

Yes, but on the other hand, fallacious reasoning is rarely the source of disagreement or controversy in a debate. At least in my experience. All you're doing by saying "ad hominem" is shifting the focus to technical delivery of the argument rather than focusing on the real matter of the discussion. And most people forget that calling something an ad hominem attack does not mean that it's wrong. Most things which get…

All you're doing by saying "ad hominem" is shifting the focus to technical delivery of the argument rather than focusing on the real matter of the discussion.

I'm not sure I agree. The use of ad hominem is the shift away from the discussion proper. Calling ad hominem (or any logical fallacy) out is merely a recognition of that shift, and could be considered a (weak?) attempt at getting back on topic. When used correctly, that is.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#100

Post by zainny » Mon, Sep 02, 2013, 9:48 AM UTC

One thing that really annoys me about HN is how damn contrarian everyone always tries to be. Responses typically take the most absolute narrow and unforgiving interpretation of any point you are trying to make and subsequently use that to spin a counterpoint.

Drives me batty.