An Update on Hacker News • Hacker News Board

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#181

Post by krapp » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 9:18 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #135

throwit99 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this happen to me when I critiqued a YC backed company. Had a few thousand in 'meaningless internet karma points'. You pretty soon realise after a few further comments anyway, so I doubt it's actually effective. It's pretty mean spirited though - generally a "douchebag" move. It'd be like having a bad employee, but instead of firing him, or discussing his work, just don't bother paying him any more. After being…

Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question? That's because their claims are nearly always false. If users could look at the actual record, their perennial sob story of perfectly reasonable behavior struck down by bullying censors would evaporate. So they make new accounts and post linkless statements designed to be unanswerable. We don't ban people be…

You don't tell people why they've been banned at all, or even when they've been banned. Is it any wonder that conspiracy theories would arise around such a purposely opaque practice?

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#182

Post by simonsarris » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 9:19 PM UTC

> To prevent abuse, moderators review flagged stories and comments and revoke flagging privileges from users who flag inappropriately.

You need to tell us what "flag inappropriately" means immediately. How do I know if I've been flagging stories inappropriately this entire time?!

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#183

Post by modifier » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 9:21 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #135

throwit99 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this happen to me when I critiqued a YC backed company. Had a few thousand in 'meaningless internet karma points'. You pretty soon realise after a few further comments anyway, so I doubt it's actually effective. It's pretty mean spirited though - generally a "douchebag" move. It'd be like having a bad employee, but instead of firing him, or discussing his work, just don't bother paying him any more. After being…

Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question? That's because their claims are nearly always false. If users could look at the actual record, their perennial sob story of perfectly reasonable behavior struck down by bullying censors would evaporate. So they make new accounts and post linkless statements designed to be unanswerable. We don't ban people be…

Dang, you're what I call an emo-moderator. You're emotional when you moderate and it shows.

Go ahead and hellban me. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#184

Post by gohjo » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 9:23 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #135

throwit99 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this happen to me when I critiqued a YC backed company. Had a few thousand in 'meaningless internet karma points'. You pretty soon realise after a few further comments anyway, so I doubt it's actually effective. It's pretty mean spirited though - generally a "douchebag" move. It'd be like having a bad employee, but instead of firing him, or discussing his work, just don't bother paying him any more. After being…

Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question? That's because their claims are nearly always false. If users could look at the actual record, their perennial sob story of perfectly reasonable behavior struck down by bullying censors would evaporate. So they make new accounts and post linkless statements designed to be unanswerable. We don't ban people be…

No, here's what you do:

1) you ban people who are rude and who you disagree with philosophically, while you do NOT ban the equally rude people who you agree with.

For evidence of the above, look at users like etherael (and his other names; not sure if he tors/vpns or if you can find them), who are raging assholes on a semi-routine basis, but who aren't banned because Libertarian BitCoin Lover matches your values. And let's face facts, you're less willing to ban people who agree with you, even if they're toxic assholes.

If you banned people who you agreed with for the same exact crimes as those you disagree with HN would be a better place.

As it stands, people who agree with you are allowed to be ruder and more toxic than people who disagree with you. This is used as a game by some of HN's worst users who brag on IRC about how it's fun to try to engage in flamewars where they don't get banned but the other individual does.

edit:

Not to mention other game that's played by a lot of folks, which is to be as big of a dick as is possible without actually using openly aggressive language. The goal there being to generate an emotional reaction while retaining some semblance of plausible deniability, because everybody knows that you won't ban them for "polite" taunting, even if it's toxic shit that can't go anywhere useful or interesting.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#185

Post by olalonde » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 9:23 PM UTC

michaelochurch wrote: post #30

I still read HN. There's a good article or two per day. That said, the moderation needs work. (Or, more accurately, to be put out of work.) I've been under "rankban" for at least a year, if not longer. This means that my posts, even if they get a lot of upvotes, fall to or near the bottom. I don't really care, and while I could use sock puppets to get around that, I'm too old for that shit and I don't really care. St…

> because there's a certain joy in getting +10 karma even when your post falls to the bottom

It's possible that the ranking algorithm is actually helping your karma count. I personally only up/down vote comments when I feel they're in the "wrong position". If you made a comment which I found good and it was at the bottom, I would up vote it whereas I probably wouldn't bother if it was already at the top.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#186

Post by dang » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 9:24 PM UTC

glimcat wrote: post #175

dang wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question? That's because their claims are nearly always false. If users could look at the actual record, their perennial sob story of perfectly reasonable behavior struck down by bullying censors would evaporate. So they make new accounts and post linkless statements designed to be unanswerable. We don't ban people be…

* Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question? That's because their claims are nearly always false. If users could look at the actual record, their perennial sob story of perfectly reasonable behavior struck down by bullying censors would evaporate. * When that kind of response comes from the site's moderator, I really don't see the level of toxicity i…

You may be right. I'll look at the comment later and see if I should have written it differently. There's no time to reflect just now.

I try hard not to let personal irritation leak through in my HN comments, but I do fail at it. The most I can claim is a willingness to correct mistakes.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#187

Post by detroitcoder » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 9:24 PM UTC

When will I be able to collapse comments on HN threads?

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#188

Post by Bahamut » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 9:24 PM UTC

I very much dislike how the flagging system works currently (for posts) - the stories that bubble to the top seem to become more uninteresting, and some of the more interesting ones, & sometimes certainly relevant, get flagged pre-emptively, which effectively only serves to squelch discussion at the cost a perceived sense of avoiding conflict for the sake of avoiding conflict.

The point of view parroted out as justification for flagging stories though appear to suffer from one thing: an avoidance of taking responsibility for the results of the actions in full, and only accepting responsibility for the perceived gatekeeping of "conflict" & not for the flipside of accepting responsibility of intentionally barring any discussion on [insert topic].

The current flagging system for posts is not the solution, and it really decreases the interesting content present on this site.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#189

Post by enobrev » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 9:26 PM UTC

doorhammer wrote: post #171

tikhonj wrote: post #139

Flagging seems like the solution to toxic comments, and should be more encouraged. At the same time, this means it overlaps with downvoting—but only one use of downvoting. Really, the meaning of downvoting on HN is somewhat confused and muddled: is it a "flag lite"? Is it a way of disagreeing? Is it a way to push worse content to the bottom? Is it just the opposite of an upvote? Any one of these would be reasonable,…

The question I'd have about a downvote being opposite of an upvote is what is an upvote supposed to be for? I mean that as an honest question. Is it because it's something I like? Is it because I think it adds value to the conversation (usually why I upvote)? I've never seen guidlines for voting either way. The flag guidelines also seem pretty hazy (spam or offtopic [1]). Of course, that could be totally intentional,…

I figure that's up to the voters. Personally I upvote things I disagree with all the time, provided the comment presents a compelling argument worth considering. As for downvotes, it's never due to disagreement for me - only in times I find a comment to be unnecessarily negative, personal, or the opposite of "a compelling argument worth considering".

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#190

Post by couchand » Mon, Nov 10, 2014, 9:29 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #176

tikhonj wrote: post #139

Flagging seems like the solution to toxic comments, and should be more encouraged. At the same time, this means it overlaps with downvoting—but only one use of downvoting. Really, the meaning of downvoting on HN is somewhat confused and muddled: is it a "flag lite"? Is it a way of disagreeing? Is it a way to push worse content to the bottom? Is it just the opposite of an upvote? Any one of these would be reasonable,…

My position is that downvotes should not exist. There are three ways to view posts and comments: A. you agree with it, and appreciate it, so you upvote it to give it more visibility because that is how this whole system works - popular stuff should rise to the top, and an upvote is a measure of popularity. If you see popular stuff but have something to add, you will usually upvote and comment on it. B. a comment or p…

Very thoughtful post, and for the most part I agree with you. I would like to point out that making comments has a downvote effect on stories. I'm still not sure if that's the right answer (aren't interesting discussions the goal here?), but practically speaking, that's a factor to consider.

If you're looking at a comment of case 'C' on a story that you actually quite like, there's a tension between the desire to clarify your disagreement and the desire to keep the story afloat. Perhaps this is one reason disagreement-cum-downvoting is so popular.