351–360 of 854 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bad comment is a bad comment whether I write it or a green-named user does. Jerkface.
The number of bad comment is relatively low. And what kind of bad comments are we after?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That might work... but only if people actually read that page. Given how few people look at /newest (as estimated by the fraction of votes which are cast before submissions hit the frontpage) I'm not optimistic. How about only placing comments into the "pending" purgatory if the submission they're attached to has received more than X comments in the past Y minutes? I assume it's the chatty discussions which you're co…
Let's see how much of a problem there is first. I wanted to start with the simplest possible thing. If it breaks in some cases I'll add stuff to fix those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eh. Yes, but not at the cost of wasting good-faith efforts to contribute and making it hard for them to contribute on other threads. I'd probably endorse similar comments on a thread, even though they were redundant, for that reason.
I definitely won't, unless they're adding something unique. Threads are cluttered enough as it is, and the idea isn't to encourage good faith efforts, but to improve comment quality.
I see this new feature as being a reason I stop participating altogether. I get not wanting reddit like comments and threads, but I fear this swings too much towards a "good old boys" club.
This is nothing but a censorship and will make HN useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is exactly what happens.
A shame. Whilst I am always intrigued with what hits the front-page, I rather more often than occasionally, find myself getting to page 10 or so on the weekends. Just to see what has been going on that I missed. Your change will basically mean that someone like me who might have something to add to an existing conversation might as well not bother. It'll be years before I have enough karma on ycombinator's hackernews…
That is already the case. Very few people read or participate in threads more than 24 hours old. You're already walking into an empty room and having a conversation with yourself; all this change does is lock the door.
Why can't you make the edited comment go through same cycle \process\flow as the original comment went through? that way you don't have to assume - no one will try to hack\fool the system
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, so much for 1-on-1 comment threads that are deeply buried and are not intended to be prominently displayed to anyone else. I've had lots of interesting conversations like that.
As I understand it, that's kind of the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > It's bad enough that people are downvoted for contrarian opinions > That particular disease doesn't seem to have taken hold here yet. Comments that are downvoted below 1 more often are angry, abusive, trollish, or devoid of content. Some of the comments voted below 1 are, indeed -- but a more relevant metric to respond to that critic would be: How many well articulated contrarian opinion expressed on HN are voted…
Do you have any examples? This thread (and some other recent activity) notwithstanding, I'm not really active on HN anymore.
The only recent examples that I can give -- because I only have access to number for those -- are my own comments. I get 5 or more points for saying something obvious that I know most of HN agrees with and knows; I get nothing for saying something original, or based on my own exclusive work; I get downvoted for challenging (with an argument line and question marks all along) what I consider to be… local bias. That’s often under the guise of being negative, while I clearly offer constructive solution. I don’t really expect upvotes for the later kind, just response that don’t miss my point.
I think the comment I received the most karma on was when I misunderstood an article and bashed it due to my misunderstanding. I was wrong, but apparently others shared in my misunderstanding because it had a lot of upvotes.
I think this will probably be a net positive though in terms of comment quality here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's something like a "scrolling cost" -- people are only willing to skim so much of a comments thread, without seeing something interesting to them, before closing it. This is why HN dislikes humorous fluff-posts: they both easily rise to the top, and encourage humorous fluff-replies, which means the first few screenfuls of comments will be guaranteed to induce the kind of "scroll-pain" that makes people close th…
Fair enough. I would much prefer fixing the long comment thread problem with 5 lines of JavaScript than implementing this bizarre system.
I've yet to see any discussion forum solve the problem of long threads with lots of useless fluff floating to the top.