361–370 of 465 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also I should be allowed to veto at least one YC applicant per batch.
Given the risk/reward tradeoff for a YC investment, vetos are pretty worthless. Even if you were the most brilliant vetoer ever, there is very little upside for YC. Instead you should ask to be able to green-light one applicant per batch. That way, it would be possible for your contribution to be very valuable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't we all just act like adults and learn to deal with the negative comments Actually I find that harsh comments are more common among children and noobs than adults and experts. A random fan watching a football game in a bar is far more likely to use harsh language about a player who misses a pass than another professional football player would. What's happened here is itself evidence of this trend. The comments h…
Maybe you could attack this directly. Put a field the profile form for "something I've made." Don't allow anyone without an entry there to vote. Half of the benefit would be from filtering out people who aren't really invested in the community. The other half would be from making people think about the magnitude of their own contributions before they criticize someone elses.
I know how much I've learned and how grateful I am for having the chance to learn from this community, I'm sure there are many others as well that feel the same.
So to the community as a whole thank you for the chance to learn until I've mustered up the courage to take the plunge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I'll try that too.
If you would ever consider putting a quote in the guidelines, I heartily recommend and humbly submit Teddy Roosevelt's Man in the Arena It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who er…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately I agree, it is no big secret that tech as a segment has a fairly sizable portion of it's population with smartest guy in the room syndrome. The problem with smartest guy in the room syndrome is they already know the answer. Therefore they are not information seekers and they disregard anything that is objective to their world view. It is what killed Slashdot and sadly it is becoming unbearable here. Sel…
HN does have up votes, down votes, and a third flag option. You have to view an individual comment to get the flag option. I'm not sure what the down votes are for. "This comment does not belong on HN", maybe. I have no idea what the flag is for. "This content is so bad it needs to be removed, not just hidden", perhaps. I agree with your post though! I'd be wary about having too many options for marking posts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, I'll try that too.
I'm going to resubmit an idea that has been brought up before (it's not mine- it may be yours, in fact): two buttons for voting. One for agreement/disagreement and one as a rating specifically for quality of the comment. In the "old days," there was more-or-less agreement that the vote was for quality of comment -- feedback about the value of the participant to the community -- and agreement/disagreement was voiced (…
Is it unfortunate that you hate HN? I guess that is a question left to the reader.
What's clear from your comment is you needed to vent. (And you need HN as a way to cope with your commute/job.)
Maybe that's why there is so much harsh criticism on HN. Maybe people are venting. Maybe it has little to do with the technical and commercial merits of any given idea (e.g. a "launch") and more to do with what's going on with the commenter. Maybe they are in a stressful job, or their home life is stressful. And they need to vent.
Now, as for constructive criticism, it's a fair point. To be "constructive", all criticism cannot be solely positive nor negative.
In FDA law, there is a concept called "fair balance". In lay terms, a drug manufacturer has to disclose the bad with good. So, e.g., a TV advertisement will include little innocuous messages about side effects, and that slip of paper with all the tiny print inserted into the packaging will tell you about some very negative and scary things, if you read it. The negatives may not be front and center, but they are there. You, the marketer can say good things, but you have to say some bad things too. Fair balance.
Why not make a rule for HN: If you want to level a harsh criticism, you have to balance it with some praise.
This is a form of transparency. The reader sees both the positive and the negative. They can then choose for themselves what to focus on.
"I like 11kclub for reason A. But I dislike it for reason B."
Fair balance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This makes a lot of sense, and is worth experimenting. The comment/reply box should have some simple placeholder text, along the lines of: Don't be a dick.
How about "Be kind and constructive." instead?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you would ever consider putting a quote in the guidelines, I heartily recommend and humbly submit Teddy Roosevelt's Man in the Arena It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who er…
I really enjoy that, that is a great quote. It is the last thing I read before posting this comment and I instantly started looking for a more diplomatic way to tell you that I think it's a bit poetic and would likely be skipped by people who don't have the time to decipher the metaphors. Then again, it seems to have worked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to resubmit an idea that has been brought up before (it's not mine- it may be yours, in fact): two buttons for voting. One for agreement/disagreement and one as a rating specifically for quality of the comment. In the "old days," there was more-or-less agreement that the vote was for quality of comment -- feedback about the value of the participant to the community -- and agreement/disagreement was voiced (…
"Cool, now there're two ways for me to punish someone I don't like." The flaw, if you want to call it that, with this suggestion is that it is a mechanism based on the idea that people are decent, reasonable, and well-informed. Which is not a bad thing, but it is not well suited to fixing a problem caused be people behaving indecently, unreasonably, and/or with little experience being "Good HN Citizens."
Also I think the community still praises and gives great self-esteem boosting comments. I can't tell you how many postings of "look at me project" that seem like 3 hour mashups for which I don't undestand the point at all, but the comments will have snark at all. Of course, this is just my anecdote.