3 ms·
An idea I just had that might help civility is to require every post to "explain itself" with a limited set of tags. Sort of like the ./ point system in reverse
by chipsy 17y ago
An idea I just had that might help civility is to require every post to "explain itself" with a limited set of tags. Sort of like the ./ point system in reverse; you would get some set of options like "Information," "Opinion," "Related," "Off-topic" and you pick one or more. So if you want to start making a fuss or interject something outside the immediate discussion, you have to announce it.
Doing this adds filtering metadata and an gives additional incentive to downvote comments that don't contribute - they're going to be more likely to use few tags or inappropriate ones. On the other hand, posts that use a lot of tags simultaneously and actually encompass all of them are probably detailed and well-considered.
Downsides: more work to post(not always a bad thing), more room for nasty rules lawyering("This is not Hacker News").
- stuntgoat 17y agoI guess my reply to you would be under 'meta' because my questions to you are: What do you mean by: 'more room for nasty rules lawyering("This is not Hacker News")'? I like your idea; how would I choose between 'information' and 'related'- or 'opinion' and 'related'? Would 'factual' and 'insightful' be more useful as labels?
- teamonkey 17y agoI would suggest something similar but for voting, not for posting. Instead of upvoting or downvoting one would pick from a small selection of tags. That would allow for the distinction between "agree" and "informative", for example, or "disagree" and "spam".
- rw 17y agoPG has been given [literally] dozens of great suggestions like yours, yet has not implemented them. I think that he is trying to cultivate a respectful community through conversation (i.e. comments), instead of applying technological solutions.
- rinich 17y agoWhen your entire site is a technological solution, that doesn't work. It's not natural to divide conversations and rank them based on merits of "good" and "bad". This is why flat conversations don't succumb to groupthink as quickly or as badly.
- pg 17y agoI'm definitely going to change the site. The reason I haven't yet is that (a) I haven't decided exactly what to do, and (b) a new batch of startups just arrived at YC a couple weeks ago.