Live data from Hacker News

An Update on Hacker News

blog.ycombinator.com

201–210 of 371 posts

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#201
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anymore Not only did we never ban people for criticizing YC companies, the very first thing PG told me when I started moderating HN, and the thing that he emphasized most strongly after that, was never to do things that could be construed (or misconstrued) as censorship of anti-YC stories. (I've edited out some irritation that leaked through in my original version of this comment.)

dang, I think HN has improved for the better, especially since some effort has been made to make things more transparent. But it would be despicably dishonest for you guys to deny that routinely you guys do things here to protect YC companies (including manipulating voting points on comments/ submissions). One example (on the top of my mind) is the drchrono post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7178004 Even thou…

I'm glad that you agree that HN has been getting better. We obviously have a way to go to win you over, but challenge accepted, we're absolutely willing to try.

It isn't hard to deny that general impression you're reporting, because it isn't true. But I don't see any way to refute such a sweeping claim convincingly. As far as I can tell it exists only on the level of rumor and is unanswerable. But I'm happy to reply about specific cases.

In the Drchrono case, we got an email from the founder asking to post a response after the commenting window had closed. I agreed, but not because this was a YC startup, but rather because we would do this for any startup in this situation, and have indeed done so for at least one non-YC startup I can remember. Before I agreed to the Drchrono founder's request, I told him I needed to make sure that we would do it for any startup in that situation, and I thought long and hard before concluding that was true. It was by far the most important factor in that decision.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#202

A third experiment didn't go so well: we briefly made the software kill comments that had been sufficiently downvoted. Many users objected, arguing that killing downvoted comments is too harsh a punishment for unpopular opinions, especially since downvoted comments get faded to begin with. We heard that and reversed the change. Good to hear they decided to roll that back. PG opened a pandora's box when he said that d…

> PG opened a pandora's box when he said that downvotes were acceptable when you merely disagreed with someone, instead of doing so for civility. There is no end of sadness and bullshit caused by that remark.

Since that remark came to my attention, I've put less thought and research into my HN comments.

It only takes a few net down votes to make a comment sufficiently hard to read that it is effectively dead. For example, suppose there is an article about government surveillance, which the article opposes, and the article makes an assertion about the 4th Amendment that is wrong. If you post a comment explaining the error and how the 4th Amendment actually works, some people will misinterpret this as implying that you are in favor of government surveillance, and down vote you for that.

The people who correctly interpret the comment are not as likely to up vote as the people who misinterpret are likely to down vote, and so the down voters have an advantage.

If down voting simply moved the comment toward the bottom, rather than making it almost unreadable, it would be OK. It the combination of making down voted comments hard to read and saying that down votes for disagreement is OK that is the killer. The message that sends is that comments here are supposed to agree with the majority opinion.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#203
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…

> 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.

If this were true, then why are downvoted comments faded? Because unpopular opinions don't need to be read by others? The downvote button is for noise that doesn't contribute to the discussion, but that doesn't break the rules. At least, that's what it's always been to me (regardless of what HN claims it's for).

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pg has said many times that it's OK to downvote out of disagreement (particularly since it's OK to upvote due to agreement.) I generally don't unless the disagreement has another value-subtracting component (lack of substance, poor reasoning/phrasing, factual errors, unnecessary incivility.) For disagreeable but worthwhile comments, I prefer responding instead. But I recognize the value in having differences of opini…

> pg has said many times that it's OK to downvote out of disagreement That doesn't mean it's a good idea. I would urge everyone (including PG) to reconsider the acceptability of this practice -- it strikes me as being harmful. To put it a different way: PG & friends have put together a quality discussion forum. One of the reasons it remains relatively high quality is necessarily that many users of the site do not use…

>> One of the reasons it remains relatively high quality is necessarily that many users of the site do not use downvotes to express disagreement.

I think the reason it's high quality is because it started as a place for the kind of people interested in startups. To me that means (statistically) well educated, ambitious, interested in STEM topics, etc...

Just like in the old days of internet news before AOL made it available to the masses. For example, sci.math had awesome discussions among leading mathematicians, and then the masses came looking for help with their homework and those guys left.

Like all good forums, if it does really well to the point that the general public takes interest, it will likely become crap.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#206
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News is supposedly undergoing a redesign soon, which would assumingly include a responsive layout.

Not a redesign, but new markup that preserves the existing design.

dang I like the current design (it is no nonsense), but could one change be made to the location of the vote arrows. Could the down vote triangle be moved to after the users name (e.g. ^ dang v)? This would make it so much easier to avoid accidentally down voting on mobile devices.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#207
post #198
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's wildly inappropriate to lob a blanket accusation of fraud against every single person who has ever complained about your moderation. People have wildly divergent views as to what's appropriate, what's a little rude, and what's over the line. This means that even if you really truly believe that there was NEVER a mistake made during moderation, that some people will truly believe what they said. Good moderation r…

[deleted]

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#208

I would love to see them lower the threshold for down-voting. I've only got 200+ karma, and it's hard for me to get more. I can't be on here all day commenting, and being the first to submit articles. If I have something important to say, I comment, otherwise, I mostly consume. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to download a comment I don't agree with or find offensive.

Same spot here - I've actually been on HN a couple years longer than my profile here indicates, but it wasn't until several years in that I actually felt the need to create an account to comment. I only comment when I feel like I can really contribute. I don't know what the threshold is for down voting, but I must still not be at it. I don't know how much it matters to me though - it definitely makes me feel like mor…

The threshold is 500, as far as I know. Whenever I reach that, I delete my account and create a new one. I'm probably one of those people who downvotes others that I don't agree with, and I don't want that power. Especially since, imho, 50% of the comments that are downvoted here don't deserve it.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If I understand the rules correctly, downvoting is used for not agreeing with a comment, and flags are used for inappropriate comments." In theory, no, downvoting is not supposed to be used to disagree. It's supposed to be used to move "stupid" comments (inarticulate, illogical, poorly argued, etc.) down towards the bottom of the screen. Flagging, on the other hand, is meant to call out wildly inappropriate, offensi…

There is no particular purpose for HN downvotes other than to express dislike. It's not needed to move 'stupid' comments down, because only 'non-stupid' comments rise up. The comments which are never voted on have no intrinsic value, so they might as well be stupid anyway. I wasn't even aware of flagging on comments until someone mentioned it, and to be honest it's so inconvenient i'd probably never do it. Downvote i…

>There is no particular purpose for HN downvotes other than to express dislike. It's not needed to move 'stupid' comments down, because only 'non-stupid' comments rise up.

The problem is that smart-but-unpopular comments may fail to rise up. We want to prevent groupthink by ensuring that the top comments don't exclude ones that are well written and productive while expressing a contrary viewpoint.

A simple "vote down for disagree" breaks that.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#210
Reading this made me sick as I realized that optimizing the echo chamber to remove dissenting opinions is the apparent goal. "removing comments we don't want" is horrifying. Why don't we all just sit in a corner and pat ourselves on the back about how intelligent and enlightened we are now that we don't have to deal with unpopular opinions?
Post reply on HN