7 ms·

Your comment follows a worrying trend I've been seeing on HN: 1) Start humbly by saying you might be wrong / you're not sure / ... 2) Criticize the work showe

Your comment follows a worrying trend I've been seeing on HN: 1) Start humbly by saying you might be wrong / you're not sure / ... 2) Criticize the work showed in the link from your personal opinion, without real arguments. 3) End in the same way: "Just saying." "I hope I'm wrong". Yes, this "just a fancy blog for engineering stories as a means of hiring more engineers". I'm not sure how one can say such a precise thing without being sure.

andrewstuart2 11y ago
I think that's the right approach when you're commenting based on your personal opinion, so I'm not sure what you find so worrying about that. This pattern has been the root of a lot of great discourse I've experienced both in person and in text forums.
- sridca 11y ago
  I simply don't get it. There is no sensible reason in using the various patterns -- such as to "start humbly by saying you might be wrong / you're not sure / ..." -- "to dull the edges of an opinion" when the commenter can simply prefix whatever he is saying with "In my opinion, " and be done with it. Why call ourselves intelligent beings and rely on such archaic tricks? * Also, in regards to this pattern being "the root" of a lot of great discourse you have experienced in person (in particular) - what I can say is that I have found such patterns/ tricks to be only necessary when I'm feeling even the slightest malice towards the subject matter or the other person (requiring mellowing down the said feeling); in every other case, a straightforward/ direct stating of the opinion (with little to no adverse feelings involved) has been the most propitious course of action.
  - metasean 11y ago
    I've done it in spoken language since long before I heard of, yet alone used, the internet. I rarely do it, "to dull the edges of an opinion". Instead, I do it to provide explicit context (e.g. this my opinion or my observation, similar to the way people will use 'IANAL' in discussion of a legal matter) and to let people know that I genuinely think I'm missing the point. The only way someone might be able to help fill in what I've missed is to explain what I see from my perspective. While most of the time, my perspective turns out to be pretty close to the mark, there have been times when I was really, really off, and someone was able to help provide the context necessary for comprehension. In this particular case, I actually thought exactly the same thing as the original commentor and am glad to know that I'm not alone in my impression and subsequent confusion that "I think I'm missing the point"!
ForHackernews 11y ago
Oh no, a worrying trend of displaying humility and admitting the possibility that one might be mistaken! What will become of HN's core value of speaking arrogantly from a place of ignorance!
maxaf 11y ago
+1. Oh how I wish people weren't forcing me to read the endless qualifications and attempts at hedging. Just say what you have to say.
- nothrabannosir 11y ago
  I have learned through crystal clear negative reinforcement that criticism on HN will be attacked on the most ridiculous, minor, red herring points imaginable. If you don't preface your comment with about half a page of disclaimers, prepare for three comments addressing inane edge cases and posing unrealistic demands. Id love to be more curt. But a deep thread-war is the death of every comment, so preempting every possible rebuttal is your only choice. And on HN, every rebuttal is possible.
  - maxaf 11y ago
    I hereby propose that we rename ourselves to Lawyer News, seeing how that's the kind of behavior we encourage here.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - marssaxman 11y ago
      That is the kind of behavior encouraged by an engineering discipline. Our rules are even more strict than the ones lawyers deal with.
      - mbrock 11y ago
        It's related to a paradigm I refer to as "Disagreement As The Engine Of Conversation State", or DATEOCS. Basically, in order to react to something someone else said, you identify something that it's possible to disagree with or call into question.
- brobinson 11y ago
  This is why I generally prefer anonymous discussion forums (mainly chan-style ones). No upvotes just because your username has brand equity, no downvotes to censor opinions which go against a prevailing narrative, just raw evaluation of the content of each post. If something is good, it lives on by being copied and reposted. You contribute for contribution's sake, alone. The downside is that you have to manually wade through the low quality posts/trolls yourself, but I don't find this to be too big of a deal in practice.
netghost 11y ago
So I'm just a HN reader, but this isn't a new trend. Folks have been doing it for ages. Just sayin'
nkozyra 11y ago
I believe this is an inherent effect of upvoting/downvoting. In an effort to protect against negative sentiment, qualifiers and requests for correction are included. It's intended to dull the edges of an opinion (correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not entirely sure).
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  This is exactly correct and it happens on many sites that have upvoting and downvoting functionality (reddit and even digg back in the day had this; hell you can even find this on slashdot at times). Ultimately I'm not convinced upvoting / downvoting is a good metric but I'm not sure what is better. The same goes or ordering; if you arrive at something on social media where you're the expert / can provide possibly the best feedback but there are already 100 comments on it? Good luck. You'll be drowned out. This is a fun aside topic though :)
- Arnt 11y ago
  That sounds nice. Haters gonna hate, I've heard. But maybe one or two haters had second thoughts while adding insincere hedges and qualifications, and decided not to post their bilge after all? Or decided to read the original posting before commenting? I'm going to hope so. The thought will make me read a hundred hedges and qualifications with a smile.
- parennoob 11y ago
  Nice self-referential hedging at the end :) This is a result of HN's guidelines that say "It's explicitly okay to downvote based on disagreement", whereas for example Reddit's guidelines say "Downvote based on quality, not opinion". As a result, you get an aversion to disagreement, with a lot of "I think maybe.." and "I could be wrong.." phrases.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mbrock 11y ago
  Why wouldn't it simply be the result of people trying to express their thoughts in an epistemically warranted way, instead of making a strong claim when they only have a hunch or suspicion?
ixtli 11y ago
Well said. I feel like this is a response to how negativity or sarcasm even in small doses is dog piled on. I get that communities become toxic in this way but I think that on HN the pendulum has swung way too far to the other side, so to speak.
jeo1234 11y ago
I think you are right that critical HN comments tend to follow that format, however I fail to see why treating others with civility is a bad thing.
- skykooler 11y ago
  A lot of replies to this also start with "I think" or "I believe", which is another way of dulling the edges of a position.
brentm 11y ago
This comment also follows a worrying trend: Attempting to put a person down for ones own personal enjoyment while adding nothing to the actual discussion. The original comment was not perfect but it was at least on subject.
dpcan 11y ago
This is just how people should communicate with each other. It's polite, it invites others to be civil yet still argue with your point, and it doesn't appear arrogant. If I enter a conversation where I'm unsure how the audience will interpret my opinion, I'll start by making sure everyone knows that I'm open minded, have an opinion, and have no expectation of others to have the same. I'll follow-up with my thoughts on the matter, and close by reassuring my audience that it's just an opinion, I'd love to hear their arguments too, and yes, I AM confident in my views, but I've certainly been wrong in the past, so I'm all ears.
dclowd9901 11y ago
I think there are far more worrying trends in the world. As an aside: I actually really like the way the marketing here speaks to me as an engineer, and the way we are generally in a place of understanding the context of our work in a world that doesn't understand the brass tacks of that work.
guelo 11y ago
I had the same reaction as morley and was hoping someone would give a better tldr of the site. I think your comment is much worse, it adds nothing to the current topic, except the part where you say "Yes, this [is] ...". And it derails the thread into a boring meta topic.
dang 11y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11195895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11195895 and marked it off-topic. Edit: I should probably add that it isn't halflings' comment alone, but the fact that the entire discussion went massively meta, that made this subthread problematic.
- gue5t 11y ago
  The right way to handle a direct reply to a comment is to detach its thread and leave its pronouns dangling? What particular deficiency of the HN comment threading system is this particular act of moderation addressing?
  - dang 11y ago
    Note the pointer to the original parent. Nothing is dangling. One layer of indirection strikes me as about right for subthreads that go far off-topic (or violate the site rules).
- metasean 11y ago
  I find it confusing that you detached the thread that was actually commenting about the actual article, but then left the thread that was commenting about the <now detached> comment's style. It would have made much more sense to leave @morley's original comment wondering if the actual post, "Is this just a fancy blog for engineering stories as a means of hiring more engineers?" and instead detached @hafling's comment about @morley's comment style.
  - dang 11y ago
    That's exactly what we did! Why did it seem otherwise?
    - metasean 11y ago
      You broke off (detached; are NOT showing) the comment that IS ACTUALLY RELATED to the original post. You left the comment that was commenting on the commenting style of the detached post. It seems like you detached the WRONG comment, hence my confusion.

andrewstuart2 11y ago

I think that's the right approach when you're commenting based on your personal opinion, so I'm not sure what you find so worrying about that. This pattern has been the root of a lot of great discourse I've experienced both in person and in text forums.

sridca 11y ago
I simply don't get it. There is no sensible reason in using the various patterns -- such as to "start humbly by saying you might be wrong / you're not sure / ..." -- "to dull the edges of an opinion" when the commenter can simply prefix whatever he is saying with "In my opinion, " and be done with it. Why call ourselves intelligent beings and rely on such archaic tricks? * Also, in regards to this pattern being "the root" of a lot of great discourse you have experienced in person (in particular) - what I can say is that I have found such patterns/ tricks to be only necessary when I'm feeling even the slightest malice towards the subject matter or the other person (requiring mellowing down the said feeling); in every other case, a straightforward/ direct stating of the opinion (with little to no adverse feelings involved) has been the most propitious course of action.
- metasean 11y ago
  I've done it in spoken language since long before I heard of, yet alone used, the internet. I rarely do it, "to dull the edges of an opinion". Instead, I do it to provide explicit context (e.g. this my opinion or my observation, similar to the way people will use 'IANAL' in discussion of a legal matter) and to let people know that I genuinely think I'm missing the point. The only way someone might be able to help fill in what I've missed is to explain what I see from my perspective. While most of the time, my perspective turns out to be pretty close to the mark, there have been times when I was really, really off, and someone was able to help provide the context necessary for comprehension. In this particular case, I actually thought exactly the same thing as the original commentor and am glad to know that I'm not alone in my impression and subsequent confusion that "I think I'm missing the point"!

ForHackernews 11y ago

Oh no, a worrying trend of displaying humility and admitting the possibility that one might be mistaken! What will become of HN's core value of speaking arrogantly from a place of ignorance!

maxaf 11y ago

+1. Oh how I wish people weren't forcing me to read the endless qualifications and attempts at hedging. Just say what you have to say.

nothrabannosir 11y ago
I have learned through crystal clear negative reinforcement that criticism on HN will be attacked on the most ridiculous, minor, red herring points imaginable. If you don't preface your comment with about half a page of disclaimers, prepare for three comments addressing inane edge cases and posing unrealistic demands. Id love to be more curt. But a deep thread-war is the death of every comment, so preempting every possible rebuttal is your only choice. And on HN, every rebuttal is possible.
- maxaf 11y ago
  I hereby propose that we rename ourselves to Lawyer News, seeing how that's the kind of behavior we encourage here.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - marssaxman 11y ago
    That is the kind of behavior encouraged by an engineering discipline. Our rules are even more strict than the ones lawyers deal with.
    - mbrock 11y ago
      It's related to a paradigm I refer to as "Disagreement As The Engine Of Conversation State", or DATEOCS. Basically, in order to react to something someone else said, you identify something that it's possible to disagree with or call into question.
brobinson 11y ago
This is why I generally prefer anonymous discussion forums (mainly chan-style ones). No upvotes just because your username has brand equity, no downvotes to censor opinions which go against a prevailing narrative, just raw evaluation of the content of each post. If something is good, it lives on by being copied and reposted. You contribute for contribution's sake, alone. The downside is that you have to manually wade through the low quality posts/trolls yourself, but I don't find this to be too big of a deal in practice.

netghost 11y ago

So I'm just a HN reader, but this isn't a new trend. Folks have been doing it for ages. Just sayin'

nkozyra 11y ago

I believe this is an inherent effect of upvoting/downvoting. In an effort to protect against negative sentiment, qualifiers and requests for correction are included. It's intended to dull the edges of an opinion (correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not entirely sure).

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
This is exactly correct and it happens on many sites that have upvoting and downvoting functionality (reddit and even digg back in the day had this; hell you can even find this on slashdot at times). Ultimately I'm not convinced upvoting / downvoting is a good metric but I'm not sure what is better. The same goes or ordering; if you arrive at something on social media where you're the expert / can provide possibly the best feedback but there are already 100 comments on it? Good luck. You'll be drowned out. This is a fun aside topic though :)
Arnt 11y ago
That sounds nice. Haters gonna hate, I've heard. But maybe one or two haters had second thoughts while adding insincere hedges and qualifications, and decided not to post their bilge after all? Or decided to read the original posting before commenting? I'm going to hope so. The thought will make me read a hundred hedges and qualifications with a smile.
parennoob 11y ago
Nice self-referential hedging at the end :) This is a result of HN's guidelines that say "It's explicitly okay to downvote based on disagreement", whereas for example Reddit's guidelines say "Downvote based on quality, not opinion". As a result, you get an aversion to disagreement, with a lot of "I think maybe.." and "I could be wrong.." phrases.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
mbrock 11y ago
Why wouldn't it simply be the result of people trying to express their thoughts in an epistemically warranted way, instead of making a strong claim when they only have a hunch or suspicion?

ixtli 11y ago

Well said. I feel like this is a response to how negativity or sarcasm even in small doses is dog piled on. I get that communities become toxic in this way but I think that on HN the pendulum has swung way too far to the other side, so to speak.

jeo1234 11y ago

I think you are right that critical HN comments tend to follow that format, however I fail to see why treating others with civility is a bad thing.

skykooler 11y ago
A lot of replies to this also start with "I think" or "I believe", which is another way of dulling the edges of a position.

brentm 11y ago

This comment also follows a worrying trend: Attempting to put a person down for ones own personal enjoyment while adding nothing to the actual discussion. The original comment was not perfect but it was at least on subject.

dpcan 11y ago

This is just how people should communicate with each other. It's polite, it invites others to be civil yet still argue with your point, and it doesn't appear arrogant. If I enter a conversation where I'm unsure how the audience will interpret my opinion, I'll start by making sure everyone knows that I'm open minded, have an opinion, and have no expectation of others to have the same. I'll follow-up with my thoughts on the matter, and close by reassuring my audience that it's just an opinion, I'd love to hear their arguments too, and yes, I AM confident in my views, but I've certainly been wrong in the past, so I'm all ears.

dclowd9901 11y ago

I think there are far more worrying trends in the world. As an aside: I actually really like the way the marketing here speaks to me as an engineer, and the way we are generally in a place of understanding the context of our work in a world that doesn't understand the brass tacks of that work.

guelo 11y ago

I had the same reaction as morley and was hoping someone would give a better tldr of the site. I think your comment is much worse, it adds nothing to the current topic, except the part where you say "Yes, this [is] ...". And it derails the thread into a boring meta topic.

dang 11y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11195895 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11195895 and marked it off-topic. Edit: I should probably add that it isn't halflings' comment alone, but the fact that the entire discussion went massively meta, that made this subthread problematic.

gue5t 11y ago
The right way to handle a direct reply to a comment is to detach its thread and leave its pronouns dangling? What particular deficiency of the HN comment threading system is this particular act of moderation addressing?
- dang 11y ago
  Note the pointer to the original parent. Nothing is dangling. One layer of indirection strikes me as about right for subthreads that go far off-topic (or violate the site rules).
metasean 11y ago
I find it confusing that you detached the thread that was actually commenting about the actual article, but then left the thread that was commenting about the <now detached> comment's style. It would have made much more sense to leave @morley's original comment wondering if the actual post, "Is this just a fancy blog for engineering stories as a means of hiring more engineers?" and instead detached @hafling's comment about @morley's comment style.
- dang 11y ago
  That's exactly what we did! Why did it seem otherwise?
  - metasean 11y ago
    You broke off (detached; are NOT showing) the comment that IS ACTUALLY RELATED to the original post. You left the comment that was commenting on the commenting style of the detached post. It seems like you detached the WRONG comment, hence my confusion.