Do you feel newbies are being misled? Isit not the case that older hands are sufficiently aware of TC's proclivities? Is it not enough simply to flag the contributions when they are clearly wrong, or down-mod stupid, irrelevant or content-free comments? What would banning them add? Is it impossible that they might yet say something useful?
You can't downvote submissions and TC is great at linkbait headlines, which get upvoted before people read the actual post. That's the problem.
Poll: Should we ban TechCrunch?
21–30 of 141 posts
Re: Poll: Should we ban TechCrunch?
#22This happened with Facebook too and to some extent Youtube. In my opinion TC are doing the same as most of the media:
People join X social networking site
Media writes about X site
People feel positive with a "hey, they're talking about X, I use X. This publication/site is relevant to me" feeling
More people join X
Re: Poll: Should we ban TechCrunch?
#23If you don't like TechCrunch, "ban" it for yourself, why do you need a collective approval for this? Sorry, I think HN does not deserve polls like this one.
In that case, why is valleywag banned? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=160704 Collective screening of linkbait/spam articles is useful IMHO.
Re: Poll: Should we ban TechCrunch?
#24My suggestion is to limit the number of stories that can be submitted and/or made popular in a day. So if one story makes it to the front page in the past 24 hours, news submissions from the same site are disabled. The time period can be manipulated (12 hours, one week, whatever). This will limit the effect of TC and a few other sites that are very frequent front-pagers without merit IMHO.
Re: Poll: Should we ban TechCrunch?
#25Re: Poll: Should we ban TechCrunch?
#26I'm afraid I happen to like TechCrunch. Techcrunch is a news outlet, it writes about what people want to read. The internet is MUCH bigger than you and I my friend.
Re: Poll: Should we ban TechCrunch?
#27Do HN discussions add insight and interest? Do they raise or lower the quality of discourse here?
Some discussions devolve very quickly into name-calling, negativity, and mindlessness. Some elevate into insightful observations and positive debate. Look at the discussions and think about whether HN should encourage or discourage them.
My thought is that if TC discussions on HN are positive, there should be no ban regardless of the quality of the links. But if there is a preponderance of negative discussions around its links, it may be in HN's interests to simply walk away without any further ado.
Re: Poll: Should we ban TechCrunch?
#28The thing that annoys me about TC is that their headlines are so inflammatory that I just have to click them to find out what they're beating up now, and always instantly regret it. Perhaps the key is developing better self-control.
Re: Poll: Should we ban TechCrunch?
#29As it is, the up/down voting gives them feedback on an post-by-post basis as to what matters to HNers. [ Just in case they care. ]
In regard to one post: Let's not "protect" noobs from "bad info" - except to the extent that we noobs can see what the overall HN population thinks of value of specific articles. That is the power of what HN has to offer to begin with! --and it gives more feedback about specific articles (e.g., if there is no (or few) upvotes) than if no feedback at HN existed about particular posts.
Re: Poll: Should we ban TechCrunch?
#30Instead of a ban, we should allow users to create filters. I would filter TechCrunch and codinghorror.