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

An Update on Hacker News

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 371 posts

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#301

Post by throwawayaway »

tptacek wrote: post #249
gohjo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Dan is a libertarian bitcoin lover? I've spent several hours in person talking to him. I'm a statist liberal Democrat who believes bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. He did not set off my spidey sense. I think you might be attributing generalized fears and frustrations onto specific people you don't know.

sorry, it's a pyramid scheme not a ponzi scheme but yeah agree with your sentiment.

although maybe it is a ponzi scheme for the miners now that I think about it.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#302

Post by lotharbot »

amyhoy wrote: post #300
lotharbot wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "The phrase "think of, or care for, others" didn't show up in my comment" It's a direct quote of a dead comment you wrote in a reply. Turn on "showdead" to see it [0]. The dead "think of" comment in the "shitty friend" thread appeared 405 days ago. Your comment about the bootstrapping conference was 406 days ago. (There's also a dead reply in the bootstrapping thread dated 405 days ago, which fits the timing of bei…

You call it the "shitty friend" thread is pretty inflammatory considering, again, that was the OP's own words (not mine). I turned on showdead and my dead comment that you're referring to sure looks reasoned and measured to me: I never said anyone specific is self-centered. I said: >How self-centered do you have to be to not even wish a friend with obvious health problems "good luck" or "feel better"? That's a rhetor…

I'm using "shitty friend" as a disambiguator -- whether they're your words or his, they act as a unique identifier. And I think your comments in that thread are the likely culprit. You seem to think what you wrote was reasoned and measured, but I can see why a moderator might read them and think "whoa, this is way too personal" and ban you. EDIT: remember, you know what you were thinking when you wrote it, but others might read the same words and take a different meaning. The words you used could have been interpreted as pretty inflammatory. (Again, I'm not defending the hellban as the right decision, just explaining that I see an obvious reason it may have happened. And yeah, I've seen people say worse who didn't happen to get hellbanned for it.)

Your other dead comment was probably posted after you were hellbanned (the point of a hellban is that you wouldn't have known it happened right away). That's why both comments are dead. If you'd been hellbanned for the last comment, only it would be dead.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#303

Post by krick »

lotharbot wrote: post #180
zanny wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

One thing we try to discourage on HN is "me too" or "disagree" posts that don't have much more content. The presence of upvote and downvote buttons means that those comments don't get made, because votes serve that purpose instead. There's still room to start a discussion if you have a specific point to make (and the desire to make it) about the problems with someone's comments. Those discussions do tend to happen wh…

That only makes sense in case of "me too" comments. You have 4 options of response to somebodies comment:

1. Agreeing while providing some new information. So you write a comment (actually you'll probably upvote in this case as well, but whatever).

2. Agreeing without providing any new information. Like, "yeah it's completely right what this guy just wrote". That comment wouldn't be very useful indeed, so that's why upvoting exists. And that's totally normal option, because it's very much possible that some guy just "nailed it" and thus you don't have much to add, yet you want to show your approvement somehow.

3. Disagreeing providing new information. Like, "no, your statement is false, because that and that, here you have logical mistake and there you just got facts messed up: here some link for you to verify that". Obviously, that would be a comment. And that's what constructive conversation is made of.

4. Disagreeing without providing any new information, so you have downvo… but hey, wait, what was that? You can agree without providing any new information, but disagreement is meant to have some reasons for it. So if I disagree I'd better clarify why I disagree or just remain silent completely. Basically downvoting here just means "I don't like your comment" and it's quite reasonable that one shouldn't be able to do that unless he has something more to say. There's just no sense in such a thing as "disagreeing without explanation", unless that guy you disagree with isn't an obvious troll, and, honestly, you can never know if somebody is "an obvious troll" — it's quite likely that you just don't understand his reasoning, so if you don't want to continue discussion you'd better just ignore him.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#304

Post by hayksaakian »

danielweber wrote: post #261
FooBarWidget wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was one time when I accidentally clicked on 'flag'. I meant to click on the 'comments' link, but I was on my phone and the link was too small so I ended up clicking on 'flag'. I couldn't find a way to undo it. It seems unfair if my flagging rights get revoked because of that.

You can unflag. Go to the link for the comment, click "flag", and when the page reloads you can unflag.

he's referring to flagging stories, not comments.

the flag link is right next to the comments link.

it's very easy to accidentally flag something from the home page of hacker news, when you actually intended to read the comments.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#305

Post by lotharbot »

krick wrote: post #303
lotharbot wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing we try to discourage on HN is "me too" or "disagree" posts that don't have much more content. The presence of upvote and downvote buttons means that those comments don't get made, because votes serve that purpose instead. There's still room to start a discussion if you have a specific point to make (and the desire to make it) about the problems with someone's comments. Those discussions do tend to happen wh…

That only makes sense in case of "me too" comments. You have 4 options of response to somebodies comment: 1. Agreeing while providing some new information. So you write a comment (actually you'll probably upvote in this case as well, but whatever). 2. Agreeing without providing any new information. Like, "yeah it's completely right what this guy just wrote". That comment wouldn't be very useful indeed, so that's why…

Sometimes I disagree and someone else has already provided the new information I was planning to.

Sometimes I have a problem more with tone than with content -- someone was right, but being a jerk. I'll both downvote them and upvote someone else who was right and more appropriately civil.

Sometimes a comment is simply pointless. Someone posted a meme, a lame joke, or a comment that has nothing to do with the topic at hand (like "this" or "totally correct"). Downvoting is a nice shorthand for "this comment doesn't add anything to the discussion".

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#306

Post by tptacek »

amyhoy wrote: post #284
amyhoy wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi there. Why not tell me why I was hellbanned then? Here's my comment history. Such bullying, so horrible, wow: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ahoyhere The only conclusion is that HN hellbans dissent. I'm about as far from a troll as you can get. It's your platform; do what you want. But don't lie about it.

Oooh, is being saucy or mildly disagreeable not allowed either? I get the hint.

No, being saucy is fine, and people much more disagreeable than you (cough) seem to thrive here. I can't see why you were banned, but I asked, because that's weird.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#307

Post by lotharbot »

peterwwillis wrote: post #278
grayclhn wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It moves stupid comments down _faster_. If the comment's super stupid, that can be worthwhile.

What's the difference between a super stupid comment and a comment which gets no votes at all? I'll bet you the answer to that is "I really didn't like it", which mostly means emotional value. So the purpose of the downvote there is to basically have an emotional reaction button. Take away the downvote and you take away the emotion from the voting. Then all you have is upvoting, which is based purely on merit. It sou…

> "What's the difference between a super stupid comment and a comment which gets no votes at all?"

Feedback for the comment writer. Shows the difference between "nobody thought much of my comment either way" and "some people really disliked my comment".

I think it's been very effective at weeding out the completely pointless comments (memes, jokes, "this", "I agree", etc.) and is also somewhat effective at weeding out subtle incivilities (I've changed my behavior in response to downvotes before.)

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#308

Post by hayksaakian »

DanBC wrote: post #294
zanny wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has had downvote powers for a year, you should not be downvoting comments you do not agree with. Downvote trolls or other violations. If I ever make a site with community comment contributions, and include upvoting, I would just leave downvoting out of the picture entirely. Etiher you do not agree and do nothing, you like a post and upvote it, or you report a comment in violation of the site rules. Dow…

I would modify your system to include a placebo downvote. There is a downvote button, and you can click it. It just doesn't do anything. Or maybe it only has locel effects - that comment is grey on the user's local system but not on anyone elses?

the downvote button could simply function as a `hide` button

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#309

Post by caf »

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…

I tend to agree. I use downvotes very rarely, and only for cases where I feel the comment adds nothing substantial to the conversation (so, comments that are essentially contentless).

One thing I do try to remember is to upvote comments that I disagree with, but are nonetheless well-argued or put an entirely reasonable point of view that however wrong I think it is still needs to be considered in the debate.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#310

Post by dang »

cm2012 wrote: post #232
vectorpush wrote: post #111

How does HN's moderation staff feel about users who are dead, completely oblivious to it, but who continue to post, sometimes for years after the fact without any kind of warning that they are wasting their time. Sometimes I check the comment history of these dead posters; 80% of the time it appears like they are a genuine troll who was correctly moderated out of the community, however, a significant portion of the t…

Apparently, this is the comment that got my old account banned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4342935 . I'm not sure though, it's just the last one on the profile before they go dead. I did like my old account.

Please email hn@ycombinator.com.
Post reply on HN