4 ms·

I agree. I've submitted a Ask HN: ban nytimes lately - and got banned. Ive also sent an email to moderator asking for a feature that allows the ban of domains

I agree. I've submitted a Ask HN: ban nytimes lately - and got banned. Ive also sent an email to moderator asking for a feature that allows the ban of domains per user. Note that I've actually enjoyed this post, but anyway, if someone wants to read nytimes, he knows where to find it. EDIT: what's my opinion precisely you may ask? I think those are not hacker news per the guidelines. They are often general - good - but not really surprising. Therefore they are kinda platitude. EDIT2: currently, there is 2 newyorker.com, 2 nytimes.com, 2 economist.com on the front page. And it's like that every day lately.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>if someone wants to read nytimes, he knows where to find it If someone wants to discuss the merits of a particular NYT article they think may be of interest to this community with this community then this is the place to do it.
- quadcore 9y ago
  Sure but lately "of a particular NYT article" has become a lot of articles. Imagine the front page of HN is filled with articles like that, would you still read HN? I dont think so. Therefore, those articles are at the bottom of the standard and instead of more of them, we want less.
  - yesenadam 9y ago
    Well, if the front page was filled with articles of any one particular type/subject, I wouldn't still read HN. The diversity, such as it is, is part of the attraction. (Anyway, I'd way rather not have endless BTC articles than NYT articles.) Although [disclosure] I didn't actually read the article. How many people do that regularly on here? Often I figure the discussion here is more interesting, more worth my time, more intellectual-curiosity-gratifying, ranging over more associated topics and questions, than the original article. Plus the top-voted comment, as here, often offers a TL;DR.
megaman22 9y ago
At times it's gotten so bad I've been tempted to write a scriptlet that matches nytimes items on the front page to flag and then hide them. Most of the time, its contentious rehashing of tired old rhetoric, and it crowds out more interesting material.
dang 9y ago
You didn't "get banned". Users flagged the submission, presumably because it was off topic.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
DoreenMichele 9y ago
Probably a better practice than commenting here about is: 1. Flag articles you don't want here. 2. Don't participate in discussion of those articles, not even to talk about how you don't want them here. 3. Submit, upvote and comment on things you do want here. I used to self post my own writing fairly regularly. I mostly have stopped. I don't feel it really goes well even though I posted stuff for a time in part because some people said they wanted to hear from me. I am still trying to figure out what exactly to write about these days, having recently abandoned a bunch of projects. And I am saying that to try to make the point that what people say they want or don't want in comments seems to have a poor signal to noise ratio. I haven't personally found it to be a reliable indicator of what works on HN. A much stronger indicator of interest or lack thereof boils down to "voting with your feet" as a means to indicate what isn't wanted here and "voting with your wallet (attention)" as to what is wanted here. Give attention to things you want here. Starve other things of attention. Even if it doesn't have a notable impact on what appears on the front page, it will positively impact your experience of the site
- DrScump 9y ago
  Flag articles you don't want here. This is how unexplained flagging (there are no categories to explain why a reader is flagging) becomes a problem. People then flag articles that they simply disagree with, as opposed to using flags only to signal inappropriateness (spam, language, duplication, self-promotion, etc.). For example, Craigslist used to have different flags for different reasons, e.g. Prohibited by policey, Spam, Illegal Content, Wrong Category, Sex for Money, etc. Now it's a unary, generic flag only.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    HN has a counter measure: vouching. So if something gets flagged, people who think it doesn't deserve to be can counterweight it with a vouch. I am old and cranky and at a point where I would rather see more of that than more off topic pissing and moaning about what one or two individuals would like to see or not see here. It's lots of sound and noise, but no real action. I am suggesting they take action because my experience suggests that's both more effective and more satisfying. But, then, in some sense, I am being a hypocrite. I probably should have just flagged and downvoted their off topic, annoying comments rather than trying to make suggestions. So, whatever.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

>if someone wants to read nytimes, he knows where to find it If someone wants to discuss the merits of a particular NYT article they think may be of interest to this community with this community then this is the place to do it.

quadcore 9y ago
Sure but lately "of a particular NYT article" has become a lot of articles. Imagine the front page of HN is filled with articles like that, would you still read HN? I dont think so. Therefore, those articles are at the bottom of the standard and instead of more of them, we want less.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  Well, if the front page was filled with articles of any one particular type/subject, I wouldn't still read HN. The diversity, such as it is, is part of the attraction. (Anyway, I'd way rather not have endless BTC articles than NYT articles.) Although [disclosure] I didn't actually read the article. How many people do that regularly on here? Often I figure the discussion here is more interesting, more worth my time, more intellectual-curiosity-gratifying, ranging over more associated topics and questions, than the original article. Plus the top-voted comment, as here, often offers a TL;DR.

megaman22 9y ago

At times it's gotten so bad I've been tempted to write a scriptlet that matches nytimes items on the front page to flag and then hide them. Most of the time, its contentious rehashing of tired old rhetoric, and it crowds out more interesting material.

dang 9y ago

You didn't "get banned". Users flagged the submission, presumably because it was off topic.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

DoreenMichele 9y ago

Probably a better practice than commenting here about is: 1. Flag articles you don't want here. 2. Don't participate in discussion of those articles, not even to talk about how you don't want them here. 3. Submit, upvote and comment on things you do want here. I used to self post my own writing fairly regularly. I mostly have stopped. I don't feel it really goes well even though I posted stuff for a time in part because some people said they wanted to hear from me. I am still trying to figure out what exactly to write about these days, having recently abandoned a bunch of projects. And I am saying that to try to make the point that what people say they want or don't want in comments seems to have a poor signal to noise ratio. I haven't personally found it to be a reliable indicator of what works on HN. A much stronger indicator of interest or lack thereof boils down to "voting with your feet" as a means to indicate what isn't wanted here and "voting with your wallet (attention)" as to what is wanted here. Give attention to things you want here. Starve other things of attention. Even if it doesn't have a notable impact on what appears on the front page, it will positively impact your experience of the site

DrScump 9y ago
Flag articles you don't want here. This is how unexplained flagging (there are no categories to explain why a reader is flagging) becomes a problem. People then flag articles that they simply disagree with, as opposed to using flags only to signal inappropriateness (spam, language, duplication, self-promotion, etc.). For example, Craigslist used to have different flags for different reasons, e.g. Prohibited by policey, Spam, Illegal Content, Wrong Category, Sex for Money, etc. Now it's a unary, generic flag only.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  HN has a counter measure: vouching. So if something gets flagged, people who think it doesn't deserve to be can counterweight it with a vouch. I am old and cranky and at a point where I would rather see more of that than more off topic pissing and moaning about what one or two individuals would like to see or not see here. It's lots of sound and noise, but no real action. I am suggesting they take action because my experience suggests that's both more effective and more satisfying. But, then, in some sense, I am being a hypocrite. I probably should have just flagged and downvoted their off topic, annoying comments rather than trying to make suggestions. So, whatever.