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

291–300 of 371 posts

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#291

Post by selmnoo »

dang wrote: post #201
selmnoo wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Consider that the post was killed by moderators, then brought back alive, then drchrono individuals made a comment, and then that comment was shot up. There were a slew of submissions crying out "censorship" this day and they were all similarly killed. I can recall like 20 such instances of similar happenings involving YC-funded startups, and having a similar situation around them. So, honestly, dang, the plausibility of the chain of events you've listed from your side in this specific instance is tenuous at best, and unfortunately again, dishonest and deceitful at worst. But I'm going to suspend my tingly senses and give you the benefit of doubt at this moment, and not go on any further about this particular issue.

dang, I understand that you, in your position, have to be mindful of optics, you have to think of ways to say things that are best for YC. That's great, you should do that. All individuals of a company who have a public presence have to do that. The thing is, you must not focus entirely on optics -- you absolutely must in your heart have the right view. Not only because if you don't, some people will eventually find out what's up, but also because it's the right thing. Actions that favor YC companies (beyond a certain line) on a public forum such as HN are unethical. I think there have been enough things done at this point that the only way that trust can again be restored is by having more transparency -- for example, by showing comment scores at all times in some way.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#292

Post by lotharbot »

amyhoy wrote: post #285
lotharbot wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears the last activity you posted was in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6472749 You called Alex (whose friend had died and he didn't find out for two years) a "shitty friend" and said he didn't "think of, or care for, others". I don't know if that's worthy of a hellban. But I do know I wouldn't consider the offending comments mere "dissent".

Neither of your things in "quotes" are things that I said. The "shitty friend" was alexcap's own words. The phrase "think of, or care for, others" didn't show up in my comment at all. I didn't call him a shitty friend. He wrote, "Now you’re probably thinking I’m a real shitty friend" after his explanation of the events — which I quoted, in quotes, very clearly a direct quote from his own words — and I wrote "Yes" to…

> "The phrase "think of, or care for, others" didn't show up in my comment"

It's a direct quote of a dead comment you wrote in a reply. Turn on "showdead" to see it [0].

The dead "think of" comment in the "shitty friend" thread appeared 405 days ago. Your comment about the bootstrapping conference was 406 days ago. (There's also a dead reply in the bootstrapping thread dated 405 days ago, which fits the timing of being hellbanned for the "think of" post.)

[0 - edited my comment to add this footnote] in response to sage_joch's response to you in that thread. Link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6473532

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#294

Post by DanBC »

zanny wrote: post #161
chrisblackwell wrote: post #129

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.

As someone who has had downvote powers for a year, you should not be downvoting comments you do not agree with. Downvote trolls or other violations. If I ever make a site with community comment contributions, and include upvoting, I would just leave downvoting out of the picture entirely. Etiher you do not agree and do nothing, you like a post and upvote it, or you report a comment in violation of the site rules. Dow…

I would modify your system to include a placebo downvote. There is a downvote button, and you can click it. It just doesn't do anything. Or maybe it only has locel effects - that comment is grey on the user's local system but not on anyone elses?

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#295

Post by dllthomas »

michaelochurch wrote: post #288
dllthomas wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like I said, that's my impression. I'm just saying the differential alone doesn't show it. A tiny differential is expected. A large differential shows either a slowban or poor engineering.

Mine are more than an order of magnitude. If I recall correctly, numbers were around 200 ms in incognito mode and 10+ seconds when logged in.

So either they've slowbanned you, or they're doing something O(n^3) with your long comment history...

The first is certainly more likely for a host of reasons.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#296

Post by gregpilling »

logicallee wrote: post #273
gohjo wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disagree! (with your pre-edit, reading "It's not that you expressed yourself poorly"). That's exactly what happened here. (And maybe Daniel can edit his comment.) Daniel does a really good job, and is extremely responsive by email and on here. It is obvious where he wrote "Ever notice how people who make claims about why they got banned never provide links to the posts in question?" is borne of deep frustration. He…

"It is one of the main reasons that I would never consciously leave a comment up if it reaches -3, even if I stand by it 100%, it's important, and the community happens to be wrong in its groupthink and I clearly have explained why. I would delete it instead."

I am confused. Your preferred path is to avoid conflict such that you would rather delete than be disagreed with? If your opinion differs from groupthink, you would make it go away? I guess that is similar to not posting in the first place (because of groupthink you disagree with) , just retroactive.

Probably better than my not posting in the first place :)

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#297

Post by doorhammer »

doorhammer wrote: post #171
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,…

The question I'd have about a downvote being opposite of an upvote is what is an upvote supposed to be for? I mean that as an honest question. Is it because it's something I like? Is it because I think it adds value to the conversation (usually why I upvote)? I've never seen guidlines for voting either way. The flag guidelines also seem pretty hazy (spam or offtopic [1]). Of course, that could be totally intentional,…

I should also say that I think whether or not upvoting and downvoting should have guidelines is largely a choice about what kind of community you want to create.

If you provide guidelines, you're prescribing the behavior you'd like to see and, it seems, doing more to manually try to carve out a culture.

If you leave the barest guidelines, you allow the culture to define what it means organically.

I don't think either of those is right or wrong. I think prescribing behavior through guidelines is more complex and harder to do well, though, but again, not better.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#298

Post by ars »

tptacek wrote: post #225
ars wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is that it's better to downvote a disagreement than to write a noisy bad comment to express the same disagreement No, quite the opposite. (See I wrote a comment explaining that I disagree, I didn't just click the arrow. Much more valuable to you and the reader.) And that's why you are wrong, by saying why you disagree you might (rarely) change the posters mind, or more likely change a 3rd readers mind about the top…

I don't know who you're arguing with, but I was making a positive statement, not a normative one.

It wasn't obvious that you do not hold by the HN norm you described.

I don't think it's the norm anyway, I think it's a minority that do that.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#299

Post by baddox »

hackuser wrote: post #93
lotharbot wrote: post #66

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 (particularly since it's OK to upvote due to agreement.) What value does this provide to the reader? Community groupthink is not strongly related to truth, IMHO, and provides little marginal value, because I already know what it is and it's easy to find. In fact, I wouldn't read HN if all I found was the groupthink -- I gain far more from new or ch…

> Community groupthink is not strongly related to truth, IMHO, and provides little marginal value, because I already know what it is and it's easy to find.

In other words, downvote and upvote according to what you think those actions mean.

Re: An Update on Hacker News

#300

Post by amyhoy »

lotharbot wrote: post #292
amyhoy wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither of your things in "quotes" are things that I said. The "shitty friend" was alexcap's own words. The phrase "think of, or care for, others" didn't show up in my comment at all. I didn't call him a shitty friend. He wrote, "Now you’re probably thinking I’m a real shitty friend" after his explanation of the events — which I quoted, in quotes, very clearly a direct quote from his own words — and I wrote "Yes" to…

> "The phrase "think of, or care for, others" didn't show up in my comment" It's a direct quote of a dead comment you wrote in a reply. Turn on "showdead" to see it [0]. The dead "think of" comment in the "shitty friend" thread appeared 405 days ago. Your comment about the bootstrapping conference was 406 days ago. (There's also a dead reply in the bootstrapping thread dated 405 days ago, which fits the timing of bei…

You call it the "shitty friend" thread is pretty inflammatory considering, again, that was the OP's own words (not mine). I turned on showdead and my dead comment that you're referring to sure looks reasoned and measured to me:

I never said anyone specific is self-centered. I said:

>How self-centered do you have to be to not even wish a friend with obvious health problems "good luck" or "feel better"?

That's a rhetorical question.

Then, in the dead comment, I wrote:

> Being a bad friend in this way doesn't make you a bad person…

> But it does make it seem kinda iffy to write a blog post about it, even include screenshots of the conversation, and not (apparently?) be socially aware enough to realize that the deceased man was nearly begging his friend to express some interest and concern. And so many of the commenters, from my perspective, were not picking up on anything the OP did not explicitly lay out in the essay itself, which is to say: his friend was telegraphing his problems in every possible way, and the OP ignored it. People seem to be reading it and thinking, "Oh, just one of those things." But it's only one of those things if you don't think of, or care for, others.

Again, I didn't personally attack alexcap. You are quoting it out of context.

Real inflammatory stuff. If this is what I got hellbanned for, it really makes me wonder about the actual, deliberate, specific, personal cruelty that goes by on a regular basis without banning.

Meanwhile the other dead comment… the one that's actually newest, not the one you claimed above was the newest… is about my bootstrapping conference and upcoming site:

> Oh, good question. I can see why you'd think that. > Nope, BB will be more like HN, but specifically for bootstrappers and related topics only. IOW: public-facing, free to use. (Although I think we're going to do a MeFi-style $5 or $10 join fee, to encourage good citizenship.) > It's not going to be a product. I'm not going to run it unilaterally, either. It's for the community.

That is the last thing I posted before being hellbanned.

Post reply on HN