Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Quiet Hacker News

quiethn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: Quiet Hacker News

#51

Post by anitil »

cyberferret wrote: post #35

Nice idea, but I must admit though, that I often look at the comments first to ascertain the quality of the article posted. If I see civil, structured discussion, then I am more likely to visit the link afterwards. However, if I see off topic rants and arguments, then I tend to dismiss the article as an opinion or puff piece. Generally like that the comments on here tend to stay on topic and thoughtful, although I am…

This is exactly my behaviour. I end up with a bunch of tabs and ctrl-w/ctrl-tab through them with a small set of simple heuristics, the primary being quality of the first few comments.

Re: Quiet Hacker News

#52

Post by krapp »

jessriedel wrote: post #48
krapp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not certain there is a technical solution to incivility, or at least, I suspect that technical solutions can only go so far. Incivility is a social problem, and that requires community involvement and reinforcement of accepted norms, not attempts at operant conditioning through the UI.

Lots of incivility problems have been ameliorated by technical solutions in the past (up/down votes, flags, bans, etc.). I don't know why one would downplay attacking the remaining issue this way, especially since technical solutions are vastly more replicable and scalable. Indeed, internet incivility is a problem caused by technical difference from real-life interactions.

Lots of incivility problems have been ameliorated by technical solutions in the past (up/down votes, flags, bans, etc.).

But the fact that flags and bans are necessary means the incivility still exists, so those problems haven't really been solved. And votes create as many problems as they solve, because with them you get people posting for votes, complaints about vote fairness, etc.

> I don't know why one would downplay attacking the remaining issue this way, especially since technical solutions are vastly more replicable and scalable.

I don't believe the effect of these solutions scale with them. If they were, Twitter would be a bastion of civil discourse, because there's little that HN does in that regard that Reddit doesn't also do at a much greater scale.

Re: Quiet Hacker News

#53

Post by hedora »

ue_ wrote: post #37
DarkTree wrote: post #19

Yeah I can understand the motivation for creating this. When I first started browsing HN, I couldn't believe how supplemental, civil and noiseless the comments were. However, after several years, I've started to jump straight to the comments, especially when I have a vague clue about what the article is about. That's when I don't feel the incentive to actually read and create my own opinions. I've also started to vie…

I would love to agree that comments on HN can be substantive and civil, but the downvote power afforeded to 'elite' users is horrible, leaving a comment which is perhaps a little challenging to a charged view or commonly held belief is often simply downvoted without explanation, usually once but sometimes up to thrice. Downvoting on HN serves the ingenious function of signalling to others "This comment isn't worth re…

sigh. It gives me the down vote button, so I guess I am l33t.

I have noticed a sociological trend in Silicon Valley that equates meritocracy with "I outrank you so this discussion is a waste of time".

Your comment is maybe kinda whiny (i wants my leet downvotez), but nowhere near the level of trolling I would reserve for a downvote.

Also, you make a good point. For me, -1 means "this comment is in bad faith and should be censored", and I have noticed it being overused on my journey to l33t status.

For what it is worth, you too almost have the downvote button, and if I see too many upvotes without some gray flickering at first, I feel like I am pandering.

Anyway, keep fighting the good fight and enjoy my upvote. Also, remember this when you get the down vote button.

Absolute power, and all that. ;-)

Re: Quiet Hacker News

#54

Post by krapp »

ue_ wrote: post #49
krapp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Hacker News just isn't that, and it doesn't want to be that. Sometimes you just have to do as the Romans do.

I'm sure HN wasn't a lot of things but has become them. For the majority (I'm guessing) of users, HN isn't a place you can downvote. Perhaps this experience of the website should be widened. I respect that I am on a different website, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't campaign for it to change.

I think it would be the best thing in the world if they got rid of user karma altogether, and either made it invisible or just applied it to stories. I can't imagine it happening any time soon, though.

But then again, shadowbanning being publicly reversible seemed like a major step in the right direction, and HN survived that, so I suppose never say never.

Re: Quiet Hacker News

#56

Post by mdekkers »

ue_ wrote: post #45
weberc2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of Churchill's quip on democracy: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." HN users will definitely downvote challenges to their deeply-held convictions, but so will any other community, and almost always more vigorously. I say this as the proud recipient of many such downvotes. :)

Some forums don't have downvotes at all, and I find that controversial discussion flourishes there. The moderators also are much more laid back than in HN; they enforce rules like spam and illegal content rather than the task the HN mods have tasked themselves with: preventing flamewar, even when good discussion and education results from it, i.e they see themselves as parents, acting in a preventative measure, we ar…

Indeed. I see this incomprehensible "You are posting too fast" - mostly when I try to submit a link, which I now no longer do. I also limit my visits to the comments section to once or twice a week because fuck random downvotes. I don't give a shit about imaginary internet points, but I give a shit about the feeling of hanging out with a crowd of smug, self-satisfied know-it-all hipster webdevs that are offended by different points of view that cannot be bothered to engage in meaningful discussion and the hyper-focus afforded to them by their adderal doesn't allow for more consideration besides clicking that fucking "down" button. (I apologise if I omitted to offend your specific stereotype, leave a comment and I will be sure to include it next time)

I know that the majority of HN visitors actually are not like that, but if you spend some time considering your point of view, write it down in coherent and mostly grammatically correct English, just for some lazy fucker to come along and click "down" it is they who contribute to the low signal to noise ratio and devalue the HN experience, not you, and that is the feeling you are left with - the visible results to your efforts.

I like how some other sites do this - no downvotes, only a "spam" flag, or a significant cost to downvotes (several karma points or something).

I have been here long enough to know that this will be grey before the database is backed up, and nothing will really change, so I fully applaud "Quiet Hackernews". I personally use an RSS feed. Just came here to check the submission would be flagged (it was - you are sure predictable, if nothing else, HN)

Re: Quiet Hacker News

#57

Post by DanBC »

mdekkers wrote: post #56
ue_ wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some forums don't have downvotes at all, and I find that controversial discussion flourishes there. The moderators also are much more laid back than in HN; they enforce rules like spam and illegal content rather than the task the HN mods have tasked themselves with: preventing flamewar, even when good discussion and education results from it, i.e they see themselves as parents, acting in a preventative measure, we ar…

Indeed. I see this incomprehensible "You are posting too fast" - mostly when I try to submit a link, which I now no longer do. I also limit my visits to the comments section to once or twice a week because fuck random downvotes. I don't give a shit about imaginary internet points, but I give a shit about the feeling of hanging out with a crowd of smug, self-satisfied know-it-all hipster webdevs that are offended by d…

> Indeed. I see this incomprehensible "You are posting too fast"

Email the mods and ask them to turn it off.

I don't know how they make that decision. I guess if they've had to give someone many warnings about flamewar behaviour they may not want to turn it off. But I'm not a mod and I don't know how it works.

Re: Quiet Hacker News

#58

Post by weberc2 »

DanBC wrote: post #57
mdekkers wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I see this incomprehensible "You are posting too fast" - mostly when I try to submit a link, which I now no longer do. I also limit my visits to the comments section to once or twice a week because fuck random downvotes. I don't give a shit about imaginary internet points, but I give a shit about the feeling of hanging out with a crowd of smug, self-satisfied know-it-all hipster webdevs that are offended by d…

> Indeed. I see this incomprehensible "You are posting too fast" Email the mods and ask them to turn it off. I don't know how they make that decision. I guess if they've had to give someone many warnings about flamewar behaviour they may not want to turn it off. But I'm not a mod and I don't know how it works.

I don't know either, but I started seeing it after making a bunch of polite comments that challenged a popular political belief. They got a lot of downvotes, but they got a lot of upvotes too. I hope it was an algorithmic error (assuming that the goal of the algorithm isn't too punish polite but controversial conversation) and not petty moderation.

Re: Quiet Hacker News

#59

Post by ue_ »

hedora wrote: post #53
ue_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to agree that comments on HN can be substantive and civil, but the downvote power afforeded to 'elite' users is horrible, leaving a comment which is perhaps a little challenging to a charged view or commonly held belief is often simply downvoted without explanation, usually once but sometimes up to thrice. Downvoting on HN serves the ingenious function of signalling to others "This comment isn't worth re…

sigh . It gives me the down vote button, so I guess I am l33t. I have noticed a sociological trend in Silicon Valley that equates meritocracy with "I outrank you so this discussion is a waste of time". Your comment is maybe kinda whiny (i wants my leet downvotez), but nowhere near the level of trolling I would reserve for a downvote. Also, you make a good point. For me, -1 means "this comment is in bad faith and shou…

I categorise myself as one of the 'elite' beacuse you only need 500 karma in order to downvote; it's not about the fact that I don't have downvoting ability (I do) but about the fact that downvotes do so much to discourage potentially controversial discussion. Thank you for upvoting.

Re: Quiet Hacker News

#60

Post by jessriedel »

krapp wrote: post #52
jessriedel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of incivility problems have been ameliorated by technical solutions in the past (up/down votes, flags, bans, etc.). I don't know why one would downplay attacking the remaining issue this way, especially since technical solutions are vastly more replicable and scalable. Indeed, internet incivility is a problem caused by technical difference from real-life interactions.

Lots of incivility problems have been ameliorated by technical solutions in the past (up/down votes, flags, bans, etc.). But the fact that flags and bans are necessary means the incivility still exists, so those problems haven't really been solved. And votes create as many problems as they solve, because with them you get people posting for votes, complaints about vote fairness, etc. > I don't know why one would down…

Huh? If you just define the problem as only "really solved" when you aren't fixing the symptoms with technical tools, then, yes, technical tools can't work by definition.
Post reply on HN