3 ms·

Huge flame wars get a lot of upvotes and lots of comments -- but it's essentially the forum equivalent of candy. If you want your forum to have some nutritiona

Huge flame wars get a lot of upvotes and lots of comments -- but it's essentially the forum equivalent of candy. If you want your forum to have some nutritional value than you can't let the candy topics run rampant no matter how much people seem to want them.

andrewguenther 9y ago
I think that makes sense. But how much is too much? Say you have a very high post volume on one side of an issue, so you start moderating more heavily. Do you allow posts through representing the other side? Is that "fair"?
- wvenable 9y ago
  For the most part, the topic gathers posts from both sides regardless of the content of the linked article. So simply flagging the entire topic away is fair.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  The issue isn't really the one-sided-ness of the comments, or the volume of the comments. The issue is the quality of the comments. Even on a hot-button topic, there are quality comments made, by both sides. Those are worth reading, no matter which side you take on the issue. And then there are the "You're so stupid, how could you think something so idiotic, I hope you die in a fire" comments. Those comments don't add much except noise. If you want the quality comments to be visible among the noise, you need to weed out the noise comments. You need this more on hot-button topics, because they attract more noise comments.
- dec0dedab0de 9y ago
  I believe there is an automatic penalty if the comment count goes above the vote count beyond a certain percentage
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    Makes sense. That's the clearest indication I've seen of contentious topics on HN (comment count higher than the topic vote count).
zorpner 9y ago
It should be noted that this is an explicit strategy by proponents of the status quo, to make any discussion of the topic so toxic that the topic itself becomes banned. It's possible to moderate a discussion forum to avoid this, but it requires a high level of involvement from the moderators and a willingness to aggressively recognize and prune divisive commentary regardless of the specific tone or content.
anigbrowl 9y ago
Huge flame wars get a lot of upvotes and lots of comments -- but it's essentially the forum equivalent of candy. Sez you. The unspoken premise is that nothing is so important that it's worth stopping to have an argument over. Perhaps I'm misreading your views, but when they're tossed out as an aphorism they come off as smug rather than substantive.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
  There is a difference between an argument and having a knock down drag out fight. For example when parents have a disagreement about how to deal with catching their child sneaking in drunk after a party. This can go many ways but for the purpose of highlighting the difference take Chris and Pat. (argument) Chris: Pat, I can understand how you'd feel that way, but considering the family history of alcoholism, maybe we should take a more conservative approach with this. vs (flame war) Chris: Well, Pat... Maybe if your mother had cared half as much about you and your brother growing up as I'm trying to care about our kids and cracked down on you guys a little bit, maybe your brother would have stopped at that red light, and maybe your kids would have an Uncle.
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Unpleasant as the flame war version is, it does cut to the heart of the matter rather than tiptoeing around it, which can perpetuate a problem. Both approaches have their place.
j45 9y ago
I like HN because it is more mature and there's lots of places for people to have fun like that.

andrewguenther 9y ago

I think that makes sense. But how much is too much? Say you have a very high post volume on one side of an issue, so you start moderating more heavily. Do you allow posts through representing the other side? Is that "fair"?

wvenable 9y ago
For the most part, the topic gathers posts from both sides regardless of the content of the linked article. So simply flagging the entire topic away is fair.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
The issue isn't really the one-sided-ness of the comments, or the volume of the comments. The issue is the quality of the comments. Even on a hot-button topic, there are quality comments made, by both sides. Those are worth reading, no matter which side you take on the issue. And then there are the "You're so stupid, how could you think something so idiotic, I hope you die in a fire" comments. Those comments don't add much except noise. If you want the quality comments to be visible among the noise, you need to weed out the noise comments. You need this more on hot-button topics, because they attract more noise comments.
dec0dedab0de 9y ago
I believe there is an automatic penalty if the comment count goes above the vote count beyond a certain percentage
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  Makes sense. That's the clearest indication I've seen of contentious topics on HN (comment count higher than the topic vote count).

zorpner 9y ago

It should be noted that this is an explicit strategy by proponents of the status quo, to make any discussion of the topic so toxic that the topic itself becomes banned. It's possible to moderate a discussion forum to avoid this, but it requires a high level of involvement from the moderators and a willingness to aggressively recognize and prune divisive commentary regardless of the specific tone or content.

anigbrowl 9y ago

Huge flame wars get a lot of upvotes and lots of comments -- but it's essentially the forum equivalent of candy. Sez you. The unspoken premise is that nothing is so important that it's worth stopping to have an argument over. Perhaps I'm misreading your views, but when they're tossed out as an aphorism they come off as smug rather than substantive.

SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago
There is a difference between an argument and having a knock down drag out fight. For example when parents have a disagreement about how to deal with catching their child sneaking in drunk after a party. This can go many ways but for the purpose of highlighting the difference take Chris and Pat. (argument) Chris: Pat, I can understand how you'd feel that way, but considering the family history of alcoholism, maybe we should take a more conservative approach with this. vs (flame war) Chris: Well, Pat... Maybe if your mother had cared half as much about you and your brother growing up as I'm trying to care about our kids and cracked down on you guys a little bit, maybe your brother would have stopped at that red light, and maybe your kids would have an Uncle.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Unpleasant as the flame war version is, it does cut to the heart of the matter rather than tiptoeing around it, which can perpetuate a problem. Both approaches have their place.

j45 9y ago

I like HN because it is more mature and there's lots of places for people to have fun like that.