181–190 of 229 posts
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.
Good one. The author could have complained about self referential comments too, and how writing one doesn't make you Douglas Hofstadter.
I liked it, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny. I thought that was my thing. Typing out a disagreement comment, then read it and think: "How will this discussion end? Will any good conclusion come out of it, or will it be mere sword flailing?". More often than not, I hit back instead of submit.
I have avoided many a flamewar in this manner
On balance I disagree with most of Ken's observations, though not always or in all cases. A useful comment is one which moves the conversation forward. A non-useful comment is one which serves NO useful purpose. Correlation is not causation. This is useful where a naive correlation is shown without causal mechanism. It's not useful when a correlation is shown and there's a strong causal link known. http://www.explain…
Nothing I read suggested that every case was a problem. Simply that over time, most of these types of comments aren't helping anyone.
> Correlation is not causation....
It's useless as a comment. Spouting that off, and then adding a sentence on how bad science reporting is is where I see this most often. Or, often, it's applies to the reporting, not to the actual study. Thus, the study is dismissed because of the report.
> If you're not paying for it, you're the product.
It's mostly useless in the way it's used. Your condition of justification is where it makes it mostly useless. I mostly don't see it used with justification. Just a mere comment mentioning this, followed by a general rant about the state of being the product.
> [citation needed] Appropriate when someone makes an extraordinary, unsubstantiated, and difficult-to-source claim.
This appears all the time as the only text to a comment. First, it's factually incorrect. A citation is not needed. Merely requested. Secondly, it's usually used as a passive-aggressive way to assert that you disagree with someone. Don't have a way to argue around something someone said? Just place [citation needed] in a comment. Thirdly, I see it often used when, in the course of simple discussion, someone presents a hyperbole. It's not meant to be taken literally. However, a reply will seek citation on that specific point. Finally, it's also often used in cases where someone used a subjective adjective to describe something. People get robbed, no one will argue with. However, say "Significant people get robbed", and people want a citation, despite the fact that significant does not mean majority. It's subjective to the discussion and the condition.
> Premature optimization
Again, in the context of HN, it's most often trotted out when people are explicitly exploring optimization.
People always forget that there is such a thing as mature optimization.
> Dunning-Kruger effect Sadly, far too often appropriate, IMO.
Citation requested. =)
> Logical fallacies As with "citation needed": the quality of discourse is served...
If the quality of the comment doesn't move the discussion forward, down vote it. You do nothing by replying with a statement of the logical fallacy. Unless I'm mistaken, up and down votes do not apply to comments you reply to, or to comments that reply to you. Regardless, if you comment on a worthless comment, you are doing nothing more than contributing to the slow degradation of the thread. If, however, the comment does contain redeeming qualities despite a wart or two (as we've all had happen to us), then work to bring the thread back in order.
And the end of the day, this "you deserve to be called on it" attitude is that of a passive aggressive vigilantly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's immensely frustrating when someone is discussing a well conducted study showing an interesting result to have another person say "This feels wrong. I had $ANECDOTE, so maybe they researchers are missing $CONCLUSION_FROM_ANECDOTE?", which has been covered in the study and in the HN comments and is just a weird point anyway.
Most of the conclusions I find in comments on HN, are rarely conclusive . I've always struggled with comments that provide one data point (or better yet, a generalization of data points) that the user declares a conclusion from. I can't tell if I'm just being pessimistic when I detract these poorly thought out conclusions or if they are genuinely good for the discussion.
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.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
Edit:
To actually add something to the conversation (and sadly, to be just a bit contrarian), I hope nobody reads this as "oh darn, I better not take an opposing view for fear of being voted down as contrarian." I actually do like reading respectfully contrarian responses. Not the childish ones you describe, but the ones which have a bit of thought behind them. I think a better term is "devil's advocate."
Please people, keep doing that, at least.
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.…
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 everyw…
I've seen "[citation needed]" abused more often as I've seen it used when somebody is "[making] an extraordinary or absolutist claim absent any evidence"
And the main claim still holds: provide a link that disproves, descredits or calls into question the extraordinary claim. Or at least explain why you think it's extraordinary.
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.
I see two reasons: 1) If people agree with the idea they'll probably just nod their head, or upvote. If they disagree it is more likely they'll post something rather than just downvote (people feel the need to explain perhaps why they downvoted) 2) Geeks feel the need to say something contrarian to show how smart they are. It is a way to tell everyone they have a bigger intellectual penis than everyone else.
Everyone thinks of the karma/reputation feedback mechanism in terms of how it promotes civil discourse, but in this case it's fairly remarkable to think of how it could be biasing the conversation toward a negative tone. Maybe it's usually civil negativity, but it's negative nonetheless. I can see how people would tire of this eventually.
I wonder if there'd be a simple way of limiting the bias? Slashdot's modpoint classes comes to mind, but then that opens a whole host of other problems...
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.
I have _never_ seen the 7 of 9 of those comments here. "FTFY" stuff is from reddit.