Did Google Manipulate Search for Hillary? [video]

Post by MichaelGG » Thu, Jun 09, 2016, 10:48 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #21

MichaelGG wrote: post #19

It is interesting that this got removed from HN's homepage. But I'm sure there is a good reason as the moderators seem to do a great job. Edit: maybe I don't understand the ranking algorithm. I saw this at the bottom of the best first page. 15 minutes later and I can't find it in the first few pages. But only 24 votes so maybe it doesn't qualify for the secondary pages?

It fell in rank because it was flagged by users. There's a penalty on youtube.com stories by default, but we turned it off in this case because the allegation seemed prima facie interesting enough to let the community have a crack at it. Of course, it's highly politically charged and we normally don't want that stuff on the front page. But there was an intellectual-curiosity element to it as well. That said, the comm…

Post by sayitaintso » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 1:22 AM UTC

Post by makufiru » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 7:04 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #21

MichaelGG wrote: post #19

It is interesting that this got removed from HN's homepage. But I'm sure there is a good reason as the moderators seem to do a great job. Edit: maybe I don't understand the ranking algorithm. I saw this at the bottom of the best first page. 15 minutes later and I can't find it in the first few pages. But only 24 votes so maybe it doesn't qualify for the secondary pages?

It fell in rank because it was flagged by users. There's a penalty on youtube.com stories by default, but we turned it off in this case because the allegation seemed prima facie interesting enough to let the community have a crack at it. Of course, it's highly politically charged and we normally don't want that stuff on the front page. But there was an intellectual-curiosity element to it as well. That said, the comm…

Post by dang » Fri, Jun 10, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

Houshalter wrote: post #25

dang wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It fell in rank because it was flagged by users. There's a penalty on youtube.com stories by default, but we turned it off in this case because the allegation seemed prima facie interesting enough to let the community have a crack at it. Of course, it's highly politically charged and we normally don't want that stuff on the front page. But there was an intellectual-curiosity element to it as well. That said, the comm…

Sad that a small minority of users can manipulate HN's front page to suit their political biases. This post is certainly more interesting and important than everything else on the front page. Flags should be used for stuff that actually violates rules. Not a "disagree button".

Post by Houshalter » Sat, Jun 11, 2016, 12:34 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #28

Houshalter wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sad that a small minority of users can manipulate HN's front page to suit their political biases. This post is certainly more interesting and important than everything else on the front page. Flags should be used for stuff that actually violates rules. Not a "disagree button".

It's a bit of a strange example to make this claim about, since the argument that that post broke HN's rules is pretty easy. The balance between upvotes and flags (and moderation) on HN is pretty stable; it's been this way for years. It doesn't always produce what I think is the most interesting and important result, either. Probably true for most readers if not everyone.