7 ms·

'dang, thanks for the announcement. Are you going to write up what else you learned from the experiment? Also, when you say the guidelines have it about right

by jdp23 10y ago

'dang, thanks for the announcement. Are you going to write up what else you learned from the experiment? Also, when you say the guidelines have it about right, there's a lot of evidence that the current implementation favors people who want to bury stories that relate to politics (or other hot-button topics like diversity). Are there plans to look at this?

dang 10y ago
The main thing we learned is that a change like that won't solve HN's civility problem, which was the big question we had. But we learned other interesting things too, like that a week is too long for trying out an idea like this. Also, if we say we're trying out an idea briefly, some people think we mean permanently. Communication on the internet is hard. We're definitely going to consider tweaks to the guidelines, but substantive stories on e.g. diversity are already not off topic. Some do get flagged, but we've often turned off the flags or reduced them (which is standard practice on HN for a whole range of stories) and many have appeared on the front page.
- viridian 10y ago
  I think one of the reasons that people think that trying something out leads to permanence is that there's a pretty long established trend of that being the case on websites that HN shares membership with. You may be paying the social price for actions inflicted by Digg and Reddit, years ago.
  - dang 10y ago
    That's quite interesting. What would you suggest by way of differentiating from this, if we decide to do something like this again? I don't mean something like a no-politics week, I just mean some short-term variation with no intention of permanence. I'd hate to give up our ability to try out ideas.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      I don't think there's a short-cut to differentiating yourself there: you just have to run experiments and not use that language to roll out new features (ie, never make an experiment permanent at the end, but roll it back for a few days/week/month, discuss it, and then redeploy). I would actually trust a website that made too big a deal about how they weren't like those other guys less, because that's an old marketing trick. Same way you build a reputation for anything.
    - qwename 10y ago
      I think there will always be resistance to change, so perhaps there should be a visible indication that some idea is being tested out, with an option for users to disable it.
      - dang 10y ago
        That works for software changes but not community standards, which is what we were experimenting with here. Perhaps the lesson is simply: don't experiment with community standards.
        nitrogen 10y ago
        I'd hope that at least some experimentation is still possible. Wouldn't a lack thereof lead to stagnation? I have a hard time believing that, as great as it is, HN has found the global maximum of community design.
        qwename 10y ago
        I mistakenly thought of the change as a software change, since I've yet to use the flag button. It might be useful to tie changes in community standards to something concrete and trackable. Taking the detox week as an example, there would be a way to flag something and specify "detox week" as a reason. That being said, can you give an example of changes in community standards on this site which effects cannot be tracked in software? EDIT: Clarified scope of "changes in community standards" to this site.
- jdp23 10y ago
  Thanks for the response; those seem like good learnings. In terms of hot-button-topic stories getting buried, it's not just flagging - the flame war detection logic also plays a role. On diversity stories, for example, once they reach the front page we often see a large number of strongly worded (but clearly legitimate) anti-diversity posts. When people reply, heavy discussion ensues; and in any case, there's often a lot of piling on in agreement. Pretty soon the post is back to page 3 or 4. Of course there's the option of not replying, but leaving the anti-diversity viewpoint unchallenged strongly reinforces the stereotype of HN as a place that's hostile to diversity. So right now there isn't any good answer.
  - dang 10y ago
    Yes, this is a problem. I think the solution might be to have a 'vouch' style link on stories that get penalized this way, so users can say whether they really are flamewars or not. If they aren't, the penalty should come off. We do this manually today, but we don't always see the thread in time. Of course that leaves the harder problem that some of those threads are flamewars rather than civil conversations, as the guidelines call for. But fortunately that's not always true.
    - jdp23 10y ago
      That could help. And maybe adjusting the threshold for flamewar detection - with the "hide subthread" functionality the cost of a flamewar might be somewhat lower. Thanks again for sharing your learnings. Unsurprisingly I have some thoughts of my own, but first I'm curious about what others have learned ... https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=13132782 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=13132782
    - pc86 10y ago
      I'd be very interested in reading how you determine whether or not something is a flamewar algorithmically.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      Limiting comments per user per thread or subthread, or rate-limiting them, might help.
- pc86 10y ago
  Does HN have a civility problem? It's one of the most civil online places of discussion I can think of. Probably the most civil, although I don't frequent any strictly scientific forums which I imagine are much more "professional" if not necessarily civil. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a little snarky at times, particularly about things I'm passionate about, but I think most people could say that about themselves.
  - dang 10y ago
    It has a problem when the topics are divisive, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13095475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13095475. There are quite a few like that unfortunately.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    HN does quite well, though the mods also stay pretty busy.
- angersock 10y ago
  > like that a week is too long for trying out an idea like this. Out of curiosity, how did you all reach this conclusion?

by jdp23 10y ago

dang 10y ago

The main thing we learned is that a change like that won't solve HN's civility problem, which was the big question we had. But we learned other interesting things too, like that a week is too long for trying out an idea like this. Also, if we say we're trying out an idea briefly, some people think we mean permanently. Communication on the internet is hard. We're definitely going to consider tweaks to the guidelines, but substantive stories on e.g. diversity are already not off topic. Some do get flagged, but we've often turned off the flags or reduced them (which is standard practice on HN for a whole range of stories) and many have appeared on the front page.

viridian 10y ago
I think one of the reasons that people think that trying something out leads to permanence is that there's a pretty long established trend of that being the case on websites that HN shares membership with. You may be paying the social price for actions inflicted by Digg and Reddit, years ago.
- dang 10y ago
  That's quite interesting. What would you suggest by way of differentiating from this, if we decide to do something like this again? I don't mean something like a no-politics week, I just mean some short-term variation with no intention of permanence. I'd hate to give up our ability to try out ideas.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    I don't think there's a short-cut to differentiating yourself there: you just have to run experiments and not use that language to roll out new features (ie, never make an experiment permanent at the end, but roll it back for a few days/week/month, discuss it, and then redeploy). I would actually trust a website that made too big a deal about how they weren't like those other guys less, because that's an old marketing trick. Same way you build a reputation for anything.
  - qwename 10y ago
    I think there will always be resistance to change, so perhaps there should be a visible indication that some idea is being tested out, with an option for users to disable it.
    - dang 10y ago
      That works for software changes but not community standards, which is what we were experimenting with here. Perhaps the lesson is simply: don't experiment with community standards.
      - nitrogen 10y ago
        I'd hope that at least some experimentation is still possible. Wouldn't a lack thereof lead to stagnation? I have a hard time believing that, as great as it is, HN has found the global maximum of community design.
      - qwename 10y ago
        I mistakenly thought of the change as a software change, since I've yet to use the flag button. It might be useful to tie changes in community standards to something concrete and trackable. Taking the detox week as an example, there would be a way to flag something and specify "detox week" as a reason. That being said, can you give an example of changes in community standards on this site which effects cannot be tracked in software? EDIT: Clarified scope of "changes in community standards" to this site.
jdp23 10y ago
Thanks for the response; those seem like good learnings. In terms of hot-button-topic stories getting buried, it's not just flagging - the flame war detection logic also plays a role. On diversity stories, for example, once they reach the front page we often see a large number of strongly worded (but clearly legitimate) anti-diversity posts. When people reply, heavy discussion ensues; and in any case, there's often a lot of piling on in agreement. Pretty soon the post is back to page 3 or 4. Of course there's the option of not replying, but leaving the anti-diversity viewpoint unchallenged strongly reinforces the stereotype of HN as a place that's hostile to diversity. So right now there isn't any good answer.
- dang 10y ago
  Yes, this is a problem. I think the solution might be to have a 'vouch' style link on stories that get penalized this way, so users can say whether they really are flamewars or not. If they aren't, the penalty should come off. We do this manually today, but we don't always see the thread in time. Of course that leaves the harder problem that some of those threads are flamewars rather than civil conversations, as the guidelines call for. But fortunately that's not always true.
  - jdp23 10y ago
    That could help. And maybe adjusting the threshold for flamewar detection - with the "hide subthread" functionality the cost of a flamewar might be somewhat lower. Thanks again for sharing your learnings. Unsurprisingly I have some thoughts of my own, but first I'm curious about what others have learned ... https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=13132782 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=13132782
  - pc86 10y ago
    I'd be very interested in reading how you determine whether or not something is a flamewar algorithmically.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Limiting comments per user per thread or subthread, or rate-limiting them, might help.
pc86 10y ago
Does HN have a civility problem? It's one of the most civil online places of discussion I can think of. Probably the most civil, although I don't frequent any strictly scientific forums which I imagine are much more "professional" if not necessarily civil. I'll be the first to admit that I can be a little snarky at times, particularly about things I'm passionate about, but I think most people could say that about themselves.
- dang 10y ago
  It has a problem when the topics are divisive, for example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13095475 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13095475. There are quite a few like that unfortunately.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  HN does quite well, though the mods also stay pretty busy.
angersock 10y ago
> like that a week is too long for trying out an idea like this. Out of curiosity, how did you all reach this conclusion?