3 ms·

I'm disheartened but not surprised to have learned that what HN is today conforms to your vision of a robust, multi-faceted debate. I, and nobody I know, would

I'm disheartened but not surprised to have learned that what HN is today conforms to your vision of a robust, multi-faceted debate. I, and nobody I know, would hold up HN as an example of vibrant debate, unless the subject of the debate is purely technical. Frankly, I think you discount the extent to which people avoid or abandon comments out of an expectation that they'll be downvoted. If you don't already have them in place, analytics would go a long way in letting you know how often that happens. --- Edit: might've been unnecessarily personal

dang 10y ago
If you think I'm satisfied with HN, I wonder what other areas your model may be off base in, because that is far from true. What I said is that because there's a single front page and set of threads, people reading comments on a divisive topic inevitably encounter comments they strongly dislike, and this affects their impressions of HN. I know it's counterintuitive; that's why I brought it up. I find it interesting and far from obvious, something I only realized slowly over several years.
- Normal_gaussian 10y ago
  When I first joined I think that may have been how I saw it. However once I started commenting I was surprised to see how often myself or colleagues would be upvoted for supposedly controversial opinions. HN is not what I would describe as true multifaceted debate, but I doubt any forum can achieve that as there always seem to be large groups with well formed opinions on the matter who do not wish to participate. Discerning the reasons for participation or non participation is my go-to for understanding a topic, despite it always being almost impossible by definition.