Live data from Hacker News

Negative comments

hackerschool.com

61–70 of 93 posts

Re: Negative comments

#61
Incidentally, I think this in part explains why the Hacker School community is so much more positive than the world at large: People come here firstly to learn new things, not to dispute them. This suggests an interesting question: Could you build a site like Hacker News with a community focused on learning above all else?

Sigh.

I have no idea how big this Hacker School community is, but I imagine it is a good bit smaller than the traffic one sees on Hacker News. It is much, much, much easier to have a "positive" atmosphere when you have a community of under roughly 150 active members. I have seen stats that suggest that Internet forums typically have about 10% of the community very active and another 10% intermittently active and the rest lurkers. So, my experience has been that at around 700 members or so, you hit that roughly 150 mark of active members, above which you start seeing spin off communities, sub-communities and so on as some of the ways the community copes with having exceeded normal human bandwidth for community-making (based on the size of some brain part, etc).

This post strikes me as being written by someone who has zero appreciation for the sheer scale of Hacker News. It felt a LOT more like a real community when I initially joined it several years ago. In recent months, it seems to me it is a bit more female-friendly, and I suspect there are multiple reasons why it is evolving in that direction. So there are some good points and bad points, but it seems it has not managed to return to that same sense of community it once had.

The fact of the matter is that in all of human history, being able to bring together so very many people from such diverse backgrounds in real time is unprecedented. It should hardly shock people that this involves a high degree of friction and a fundamental need to invent new ways to interact, new cultural paradigms that have some hope of keeping things in that zone of warm sense of community. I think Hacker News is a victim of it's own success. It's sheer scale and level of traffic make this challenging. That doesn't mean it cannot be done. But that does mean it is kind of crappy to thump your own chest and brag about your pet theory as to why your undoubtedly much smaller community is running more smoothly at this time than Hacker News.

Re: Negative comments

#62

This is pretty subjective, but I honestly enjoy a certain amount of negative comments. When I click a link on hacker news and end up on a project page, it’s generally all positive. You go to some new kickstarter and you don’t see “This product I want to build is alright .” You see “This new thing I’ve got is AMAZING!”. Every startup landing page tells you, at length, why it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Most g…

I honestly don't think that is the point of the article. It goes deeper than that. I think most people who are worth their salt like honest critique.

The problem in my mind is that a whole generation of primarily academics have learned critical thinking but not how to create but they treat critical thinking as if it's creating.

This goes way beyond comments on hacker news, this goes all the way into corporate culture where there is often a race to be the one who point out the flaw in some proposal which is counterproductive to then creating.

If you have the time spend some time reading Creativity Inc. by Ed Catmul from Pixar. He goes to great length to show the difference between having an environment where proposing is regarded higher than shooting down what's proposed.

Re: Negative comments

#63
post #60
post #59

As a writer of critical comments of "hacker" school, I think this is typical of the times. If you call out somebody you are dismissed as a debbie-downer, cynical asshat, or other things like that. This comes from a culture now dominated by PR/marketing/sales, getting crazier by the growing viral marketing and astroturfing craze. I strongly recommend you to watch Smile or Die, a talk by Barbara Ehrenreich. https://www…

That does not appear to be true of Hacker School.

May I differ with my opinion? That's the point of my comment. Thanks for the downvotes proving my point.

Edit: clarifying, I got very, very angry replies and dozens of downvotes at the time. Monoculture leads to fixed mindset and drives smart people away.

Edit 2: I didn't downvote you (I prefer words in this case). My comment was in the negative when you replied, but surprisingly it's risen to positive. Thank you, whoever you are. This gives me hope on HN community.

Re: Negative comments

#64
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tl;dr Paul Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement [image] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Gra...

I wish you kids would use "summary:" instead of "tl;dr" though kudos for putting it at the beginning rather than the end. I mean this in a friendly constructive way, and realize you may not be a kid. But while there's lots of positive innovation happening in culture and esp related to the Internet, I feel strongly that "tl;dr" is not one of them, its a step backward. It's typically placed in the worst possible locati…

> you kids

DH1. Ad hominem

Re: Negative comments

#65
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd much rather read from film critics about which films are good to see, rather than bloody myself and waste my time seeing five terrible films to find the one good one. Folks have too narrow a view of what critics do. Critics critique. That can be a hugely beneficial thing. Ever had anyone proofread something for you? That's criticism. Ever had a mentor or an advisor? That involves criticism. And contrary to Roosev…

Film critics almost never do what online pseudonymous posters do; invariably, in every thread on HN, the top comment shits on the article. Film critics love film- they try to get others to go watch the films they love (or at least read their articles). The HN top comment just functions to show how smart the poster is.

I disagree. Frequently the top comment on HN is continuing the conversation. Often that involves some disagreement, but that's not the same as shitting on the article.

Looking at the first ten articles on the front page right now:

  Streem: "I am glad that someone is working on a new stream processing language, it is a very interesting paradigm. "
  Margaret Hamilton: "What a truly inspiring human being. I can only dream of aspiring to her levels of contribution."
  Sony Hack: "This is the angle on the Sony hack that I find most interesting/troubling/etc. "
  DeepDive: "It does probabilistic inference![1]"
  Youth metabolism: "I don't really understand the comments here, and especially on the article itself, deriding this research because "people should just get off their butts and exercise" or similar."
  Other Money Problem: "One of his essays from a couple of months ago [shows philosophical opposition from essays from 10 years ago]"
  Irregular Verbs: "As Steven Pinker points out in this very interesting article... [discussion of verbs]"
  LLVM developers meeting: "For those who are curious, Part 1 of Chandler Carruth's Pass Manager talk is avaliable here:"
  Overhaul law enforcement: "I'm getting to the point where I can't stand local law enforcement."
  Prismatic Android app: "As someone who is rapidly becoming an old-timer, I have to say I miss the old days of Make."
One of the comments disagrees with the article (the last one). One of the comments is questioning the quality of other comments. All of the comments are contributing to the conversation, and none of them can be characterised to be shitting on the article.

The trends continue on with the following articles, but I couldn't be bothered setting up the quoting - this is left as an exercise for the reader.

Re: Negative comments

#66
My initial reaction to this post was similar to many of the other commenters here. There's a real danger in making "negative" comments taboo.

But I don't think Nick's saying "don't make critical comments" here. This sentence encapsulates the idea quite well:

    But I fear emphasis has shifted from critically
    reflecting on and examining our own beliefs to simply 
    criticizing and pointing out errors in other people’s work.
If someone proposes an idea and you think it's terrible, it's worth taking a few minutes to think about whether you're wrong or misunderstanding or missing some part of the bigger picture. It's not about accepting ideas un-critically, but instead about examining your own ideas and beliefs just as critically as you're examining others.

I suspect it's just always been the case that many people are bad at this. It's just that the internet has democratized and scaled up the process of getting poorly thought out negative opinions about your work.

Re: Negative comments

#67
post #45

This is pretty subjective, but I honestly enjoy a certain amount of negative comments. When I click a link on hacker news and end up on a project page, it’s generally all positive. You go to some new kickstarter and you don’t see “This product I want to build is alright .” You see “This new thing I’ve got is AMAZING!”. Every startup landing page tells you, at length, why it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Most g…

Likewise, one reason that there are so many negative comments on (for example) HN is that the article probably already said most of the positive things. There's no need to simply repeat what the article already says, unless it's to explain things that might be unclear. Again, this isn't an endorsement for pointless or mean-spirited criticism.

hmm good point.

its always seemed to me that there needs to be more dialog and questioning vs "hers's by the op was wrong".

hacker news also needs more humor. maybe the best argument I've heard is that there are other places to get humor on the net and people come to HN to get the non-humor part. For me though ... I like joking with like minded folks ..and I don't often find them on the funny sites.

Re: Negative comments

#68
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Film critics almost never do what online pseudonymous posters do; invariably, in every thread on HN, the top comment shits on the article. Film critics love film- they try to get others to go watch the films they love (or at least read their articles). The HN top comment just functions to show how smart the poster is.

I disagree. Frequently the top comment on HN is continuing the conversation. Often that involves some disagreement, but that's not the same as shitting on the article. Looking at the first ten articles on the front page right now: Streem: "I am glad that someone is working on a new stream processing language, it is a very interesting paradigm. " Margaret Hamilton: "What a truly inspiring human being. I can only dream…

This discussion is not just about HN.

Re: Negative comments

#69
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likewise, one reason that there are so many negative comments on (for example) HN is that the article probably already said most of the positive things. There's no need to simply repeat what the article already says, unless it's to explain things that might be unclear. Again, this isn't an endorsement for pointless or mean-spirited criticism.

Yeah, if you agree entirely with someone's point, then a comment saying so is not typically very worthwhile. That's what the upvote is for! (And yes, I'm aware of the irony in making a comment agreeing with someone that just agreeing with someone is typically not worth a comment.)

You are using the valid use of a positive comment: Not just agreeing, but also expanding on the idea.

Re: Negative comments

#70
post #3

Critical thinking is overrated, constructive thinking is underrated. Too many turn into critics rather than creators because saying to the world "this is what I stand for, this is what I created" is so much harder than to simply tear someone elses down. The US is actually much better than Europe but unfortunately academic disciplines and craftmanship are mostly separated in the education system when they should never…

I think you're confusing the term "critical thinking" with criticism or negativity- it just means trying to be as objective as possible when reasoning about something. Critical thinking is more about rooting out your own biases than picking apart things said by other people (I would consider that to be just having an argumentative nature).

Someone who has a hair trigger for jumping on other people when they say things that they disagree with is actually applying the opposite of critical thinking- they're not only not questioning their own beliefs, but they're trying to impose them on someone else.

Post reply on HN