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

211–220 of 371 posts

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#211

Post by rudolf0 »

dang wrote: post #135
throwit99 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this happen to me when I critiqued a YC backed company. Had a few thousand in 'meaningless internet karma points'. You pretty soon realise after a few further comments anyway, so I doubt it's actually effective. It's pretty mean spirited though - generally a "douchebag" move. It'd be like having a bad employee, but instead of firing him, or discussing his work, just don't bother paying him any more. After being…

Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question? That's because their claims are nearly always false. If users could look at the actual record, their perennial sob story of perfectly reasonable behavior struck down by bullying censors would evaporate. So they make new accounts and post linkless statements designed to be unanswerable. We don't ban people be…

>Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question?

>their claims are nearly always false.

>perennial sob story

Hmm, I wonder where these fall on Graham's disagreement pyramid...

Seriously, how hard is it to tell the guy "shoot me an email and I'll look into the ban" and then make your judgment after that? Maybe the guy's bullshitting us. Or maybe he really was banned unjustly. How can you possibly know?

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#212

Post by PavlovsCat »

nilkn wrote: post #89
readerrrr wrote: post #14

If I understand the rules correctly, downvoting is used for not agreeing with a comment, and flags are used for inappropriate comments. But is fading the comment really the correct behaviour. Isn't the position on the page deciding whether the community agrees with the comment? My suggestion is: remove the fading; let downvoting only move the comments down, since the comment is appropriate yet the community doesn't a…

Using a downvote to express disagreement with somebody here is going to come off as highly inflammatory towards them because downvotes actually cause their comment to fade out, as you mentioned. In fact, there have been instances where I've upvoted comments that I didn't agree with because they were so well articulated. I believe that pg himself disagrees with me on this, but I honestly don't think the site is design…

> By far the best way to express disagreement IMHO is to neither vote nor flag, but to post a response.

I sometimes wish downvoting comments that have no response was impossible period, but I have no idea how to deal with the edge cases. Still, it's frustrating to see responses (actual ones, not just a bunch of insults etc.) made in obviously good faith greyed out without anyone pointing out what is wrong with them. When I do know, I try to reply, but usually I don't feel quite qualified. But the person who downvoted should know, right? If they can't put it in words, can it really be that good a reason? Among people who mostly type very fast, mostly idly browsing this site instead of being in a hurry, the time it takes is not an excuse, either.

To me it says someone has enough time to care about something someone said being somehow wrong, but not enough time to tell them what it is; that somehow the fact that they said something wrong makes them unworthy of being told what was wrong about it. Oh, and that nobody else who doesn't "get it" doesn't deserve to learn, either.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#213

Post by pash »

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,…

I try to use upvoting and downvoting to massage comments (and comment threads) into a sorting I like better, which seems similar to your philosophy.

I upvote particularly insightful comments, or those that I think will lead to an interesting discussion; I downvote comments that I think are particularly inane, and I sometimes downvote comments and threads that I think are commanding too much attention at the expense of a better discussion further down the page.

Our view makes sense, since the sorting effect is the main one that readers see, but it's somewhat problematic because the effects of upvoting and downvoting on the display order of comments within a thread are mixed up with harsh punitive effects at the user-level (hellbanning) and with sorting effects at the submission-level that don't align with our benign intentions—e.g., a submission whose comment thread has attracted many downvoted gets dropped on the front page, so downvotes are not an otherwise neutral inverse of an upvote.

It makes sense, if this view of upvoting and downvoting as a "sort higher/sort lower" command is widely held, to separate out (or water down) the punitive and submission-level effects of downvoting a comment, possibly transferring those to flags instead.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#214

Post by foxhill »

dang wrote: post #186
glimcat wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question? That's because their claims are nearly always false. If users could look at the actual record, their perennial sob story of perfectly reasonable behavior struck down by bullying censors would evaporate. * When that kind of response comes from the site's moderator, I really don't see the level of toxicity i…

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.

> I try hard not to let personal irritation leak through in my HN comments, but I do fail at it.

we are all, for good and for bad, unavoidably human.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#215

Post by SCHiM »

I, for one, am very glad that I found this website. I migrated here from slashdot and arstechnica, and the community is much less toxic here. I also find that the level of discussion is higher and that the comments are often more insightful.

I very much hope that it can improve even further.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#217

Post by dang »

gohjo wrote: post #184
dang wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question? That's because their claims are nearly always false. If users could look at the actual record, their perennial sob story of perfectly reasonable behavior struck down by bullying censors would evaporate. So they make new accounts and post linkless statements designed to be unanswerable. We don't ban people be…

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…

The people who hold the opposite ideology believe fervently that HN is biased the other way (liberal, politically correct, socialist, etc., are some of the terms they use). I realize it's a bit facile to say "both sides claim bias therefore we must be doing something right". But for what it's worth, no, we don't consider ideology when banning people, we consider incivility.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#218

Post by Loughla »

alan_cx wrote: post #168

Problem I have is that there is no way of knowing why posts are down-voted. Quality? Politics? Just wrong? No idea. Sometime I see posts which are factually correct, but clearly unpopular and voted down. And to be utterly fair, I'm not even sure why I've down-voted or flagged in the past. Cant even remember if I've flagged. Now Im actually thinking about it, I think I'll only up-vote in the future, and I think that w…

This is actually why I (sort of) prefer the slashdot voting system. It's not just flat voting, it's voting with a purpose and explanation.

At least that way if someone downvotes for not agreeing with a statement, they have to think about that reason and admit it to themselves, even if they don't admit it to the website.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#219

Post by [deleted] »

alan_cx wrote: post #168

Problem I have is that there is no way of knowing why posts are down-voted. Quality? Politics? Just wrong? No idea. Sometime I see posts which are factually correct, but clearly unpopular and voted down. And to be utterly fair, I'm not even sure why I've down-voted or flagged in the past. Cant even remember if I've flagged. Now Im actually thinking about it, I think I'll only up-vote in the future, and I think that w…

[deleted]

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#220

Post by dllthomas »

gohjo wrote: post #198
dang wrote: 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…

I agree with this, but I think it's worth noting that the prompt here was someone making a specific claim. One doesn't need to believe they have made no mistakes to be certain they've never made a particular mistake, and there's significantly less room for differences in interpretation (though that's not to say there's none).
Post reply on HN