3 ms·

I keep seeing this refrain "we don't want to turn HN into reddit because of low effort jokes" I also see some pretty good, very nuanced jokes (the kind you chu

by iamdave 10y ago

I keep seeing this refrain "we don't want to turn HN into reddit because of low effort jokes" I also see some pretty good, very nuanced jokes (the kind you chuckle about at first, then the second level of the joke hits and you chuckle a little harder) getting voted down heavily as well. Dunno if I can buy the "most of it is lazy" line here.

grzm 10y ago
While there may be some clever jokes out there, the more it becomes acceptable to post jokes, the more people will post jokes in their own, often good intentioned, effort to contribute humor to the site. Unfortunately, they're not all going to be clever.
- iamdave 10y ago
  Well of course they're all not going to be knee-slappers, humor is subjective. So what's the answer to this? Is there one? Should there be one? We're just going to downvote jokes-even if one is made completely within context of discussion? Even if it's an absurdist take on a topic that actually manages to get a laugh-while also / potentially bringing up a valid point? I'm not asking to argue this with you specifically, I'm just kind of curious in general where that line is drawn with the community.
  - grzm 10y ago
    I think as you observed above that the HN community as a whole tends to downvote even good jokes because it wants to ensure that the number of jokes doesn't increase, that HN remains for the most part more serious and substantial. As you mentioned, humor is subjective, and many people realize this. It's tough to litigate which jokes should be downvoted: was this one bad enough to warrant a downvote? It's arguably easier from a practical perspective to downvote all (or a majority) of jokes. One thing to keep in mind is that if there's good humor in a comment that has good substantive content as well, it's likely not a bad thing and won't be downvoted. It's comments that are posted for (mostly) humor value alone that I think many in the community are trying to avoid. Edit to add: I want to be clear that I'm not anti-humor in general. I do highly value having a place where more serious discussion can be had. And I'm glad HN tends to be that kind of place. There are other places in the world (some of them even on the internet :) where more jovial times can be had.
    - iamdave 10y ago
      I maintain the firm position that humor can in-and-of-itself contain substantive points. But alas, I'm fighting windmills here-this is a subject I've discussed in other threads; I understand the want for the community to remain at a certain level. "Jokes"/"Humor" however seem like boogeymen/scapegoats to that end; at least in my opinion. Edit: Caught your edit here- One thing to keep in mind is that if there's good human in a comment that has good substantive content as well, it's likely not a bad thing and won't be downvoted. One would think. I've definitely observed the exact opposite with a frequency that's hard to put aside as 'outlier'. But I get your point.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - DanBC 10y ago
    > We're just going to downvote jokes So far it seems that humour that makes an effort or that is funny doesn't get downvoted and might get upvotes; other humour is ignored or downvoted. I think jokes get one or two downvotes, just enough to turn them grey, and then people stop downvoting. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
- Eiriksmal 10y ago
  This comment chain is now sufficiently deep for next week's summary to be something like "A Hackernews finds n-gate.com, despite its inability to use a computer. Frantic discussion ensues from their mother's basements on whether humor should or should not be allowed in the post-enlightenment, intelligista society they are all building. One Hackernews wonders whether a joke's ability to work harder than other jokes gives it a worthier position in such a society. Other Hackernews try to create humor from first principles."
derefr 10y ago
The problem is really with how comments get ranked. Reddit comment threads annoy (some) people because "easy" jokes float to the top, when what (those) people really wanted to see is direct, charitable engagement with the parent post/comment. Also, a joke subthread can often have a sort of "gravitational force" that engages people in replying to it such that they never end up contributing to the "real" discussion happening below it, because they never make it there. This effect gets worse the earlier in the comments the joke appears. (This also happens with political tangent-subthreads, but nobody likes those.) I think (these) people would not be made nearly as upset by jokes if they didn't "interrupt" the flow of conversation by appearing first in comment-subthread-ranking. I'm not sure how that could be done without manual moderation, though; people will always want to reward jokes with points, because jokes do have genuine utility to their consumers. They just can choke out the production of more serious worthwhile sibling contributions.

by iamdave 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

While there may be some clever jokes out there, the more it becomes acceptable to post jokes, the more people will post jokes in their own, often good intentioned, effort to contribute humor to the site. Unfortunately, they're not all going to be clever.

iamdave 10y ago
Well of course they're all not going to be knee-slappers, humor is subjective. So what's the answer to this? Is there one? Should there be one? We're just going to downvote jokes-even if one is made completely within context of discussion? Even if it's an absurdist take on a topic that actually manages to get a laugh-while also / potentially bringing up a valid point? I'm not asking to argue this with you specifically, I'm just kind of curious in general where that line is drawn with the community.
- grzm 10y ago
  I think as you observed above that the HN community as a whole tends to downvote even good jokes because it wants to ensure that the number of jokes doesn't increase, that HN remains for the most part more serious and substantial. As you mentioned, humor is subjective, and many people realize this. It's tough to litigate which jokes should be downvoted: was this one bad enough to warrant a downvote? It's arguably easier from a practical perspective to downvote all (or a majority) of jokes. One thing to keep in mind is that if there's good humor in a comment that has good substantive content as well, it's likely not a bad thing and won't be downvoted. It's comments that are posted for (mostly) humor value alone that I think many in the community are trying to avoid. Edit to add: I want to be clear that I'm not anti-humor in general. I do highly value having a place where more serious discussion can be had. And I'm glad HN tends to be that kind of place. There are other places in the world (some of them even on the internet :) where more jovial times can be had.
  - iamdave 10y ago
    I maintain the firm position that humor can in-and-of-itself contain substantive points. But alas, I'm fighting windmills here-this is a subject I've discussed in other threads; I understand the want for the community to remain at a certain level. "Jokes"/"Humor" however seem like boogeymen/scapegoats to that end; at least in my opinion. Edit: Caught your edit here- One thing to keep in mind is that if there's good human in a comment that has good substantive content as well, it's likely not a bad thing and won't be downvoted. One would think. I've definitely observed the exact opposite with a frequency that's hard to put aside as 'outlier'. But I get your point.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- DanBC 10y ago
  > We're just going to downvote jokes So far it seems that humour that makes an effort or that is funny doesn't get downvoted and might get upvotes; other humour is ignored or downvoted. I think jokes get one or two downvotes, just enough to turn them grey, and then people stop downvoting. But maybe I'm wrong about that.
Eiriksmal 10y ago
This comment chain is now sufficiently deep for next week's summary to be something like "A Hackernews finds n-gate.com, despite its inability to use a computer. Frantic discussion ensues from their mother's basements on whether humor should or should not be allowed in the post-enlightenment, intelligista society they are all building. One Hackernews wonders whether a joke's ability to work harder than other jokes gives it a worthier position in such a society. Other Hackernews try to create humor from first principles."

derefr 10y ago

The problem is really with how comments get ranked. Reddit comment threads annoy (some) people because "easy" jokes float to the top, when what (those) people really wanted to see is direct, charitable engagement with the parent post/comment. Also, a joke subthread can often have a sort of "gravitational force" that engages people in replying to it such that they never end up contributing to the "real" discussion happening below it, because they never make it there. This effect gets worse the earlier in the comments the joke appears. (This also happens with political tangent-subthreads, but nobody likes those.) I think (these) people would not be made nearly as upset by jokes if they didn't "interrupt" the flow of conversation by appearing first in comment-subthread-ranking. I'm not sure how that could be done without manual moderation, though; people will always want to reward jokes with points, because jokes do have genuine utility to their consumers. They just can choke out the production of more serious worthwhile sibling contributions.