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

Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

righto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 229 posts

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#131

Post by dredmorbius »

kybernetyk wrote: post #45
citricsquid wrote: post #13

The biggest problem with Hacker News comments -- actually, make that all comments -- is fundamental: the sort of people that leave comments are (more often than not) people that want something, ANYTHING, to say, not people that have something to say.

a) the internet (and HN) can't get full b) there are downvote arrows To me it's OK if people just leave anything as a comment here because it will be modded down if it's irrelevant to the discussion.

the internet (and HN) can't get full

My reading buffer most certainly can.

If the s/n dips sufficiently, I'm out.

It's the Yogi Berra Restaurant Syndrome, or the Evaporative Cooling Effect:

http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/social-software-sundays-2-the-...

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#133

Post by dredmorbius »

pavlov wrote: post #44
raverbashing wrote: post #31

HN sometimes looks like an Asperger's meetup. I understand this is a place for serious debate and constructive criticism, but sometimes it's more uptight than getting interviewed at a border control. I visit and get value from it, but this article is spot on. Well, I still think [citation needed] is relevant sometimes, in the case of a legitimate/interesting (or maybe questionable) citation that would produce more va…

Yes, sometimes you want to see a source, but why would you use that phrasing? The passive form doesn't feel like a conversation. Like the original poster wrote, it comes across as passive-aggressive. Imagine someone walking into a coffee shop and ordering coffee by saying: "Coffee required" -- while drawing imaginary square brackets around his head with his fingers.

It's a convenient and recognized request for more information.

It's pretty much the equivalent of "RSVP" on an invitation -- a shorthand request that the person it's directed to take an action out of consideration.

Reading it as passive-aggressive strikes me as the attitude of someone who's looking for a social slight. In my experience, that search is rarely unsuccessful.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#134

Post by gfodor »

I know this is off topic, but is anyone else annoyed that JavaScript is required for this page, or that the text is too small, or that the color scheme clashes, or that it requires Facebook connect, or any other surface level detail that provides a soap box for me to rant about the personal axe I have to grind?

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#135

Post by antimagic »

bjourne wrote: post #96
saurik wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

"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."

[citation needed]

Personally, I don't feel that you need to back your assertion up with facts. If I wish to take issue with it, the onus is on me to go and scrape HN to produce the definitive validation or refutation of your claim. Which was Saurik's point, I think.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#138

Post by 6d0debc071 »

jimrhoskins wrote: post #123
olalonde wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The top-rating issue is simply symptomatic of the lack of insight of many of the folks clicking the little arrows over their first morning cup of coffee. Totally agree and it's hard to blame them. The real problem might be that people who are over-familiar with the cliche don't bother to down vote. Reminder to all: take the time to down vote over used cliches that bother you.

Unfortunately, not everyone can down vote, and the fastest route to getting enough points to do so is to make the comments we are complaining about to gather the upvotes.

What motivation would anyone other than the comment author have to upvote it?

Well, I suppose they could set up a voting ring, but that seems a lot of trouble to go to.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#139

Post by melling »

asgard1024 wrote: post #38

It would be nice to have a sort of an "argument" database, so instead of putting the argument in the comment again, you could just link to the database. Then computers could filter these arguments automatically for the people who already know it. Maybe the arguments could be parametrized, to make the connection to the problem at hand more obvious. Ah well.. a man can only dream.

A lot of arguments are repeated endlessly on the Internet, and elsewhere. I've often thought that someone should build a graph database for this. Then maybe we could move past the basic argument and go a little deeper.

Re: Hacker News comments I'm tired of seeing

#140

Post by VLM »

dredmorbius wrote: post #133
pavlov wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, sometimes you want to see a source, but why would you use that phrasing? The passive form doesn't feel like a conversation. Like the original poster wrote, it comes across as passive-aggressive. Imagine someone walking into a coffee shop and ordering coffee by saying: "Coffee required" -- while drawing imaginary square brackets around his head with his fingers.

It's a convenient and recognized request for more information. It's pretty much the equivalent of "RSVP" on an invitation -- a shorthand request that the person it's directed to take an action out of consideration. Reading it as passive-aggressive strikes me as the attitude of someone who's looking for a social slight. In my experience, that search is rarely unsuccessful.

One way to interpret it as passive aggressive is if its merely an attempt to steer the argument in the direction of the fallacy of appeal toward authority. (abortion is wrong) (citation needed?) (my bible) (I'm not Christian) (holy way begins)

Another way is just a psuedo-politeness. (... and applying ohms law aka power = voltage / current ...) (citation needed?) (quick google search results in ...whoops)

It does make perfect sense for situations where the literature is lacking. Yesterdays discussion of ultra minimal RISC architectures is a good example. So, seriously, the linked to paper only has three references? And I've read two and don't have access to the third? In the grand history of bored programmers daydreaming about turing tarpits I'm somehow familiar with 2/3 of all written articles yet never heard of the remaining 1/3 until yesterday? Citation needed. There's got to be more academic articles than listed. Just looking at the turing tarpit section along of various esolang sites...

Post reply on HN