3 ms·

A bit off topic, and realize there's no way I'm going to come out of writing this unscathed, but I'm slightly frustrated in that I've used _exactly the same arg

A bit off topic, and realize there's no way I'm going to come out of writing this unscathed, but I'm slightly frustrated in that I've used _exactly the same argument_ you just used here (specifically interesting new phenomenon), I believe in conversation with you as well (although it could have certainly been another poster, I certainly try to be internally consistent[0]) in previous flagged threads. Although those had a political bent, I felt they had even more connection to tech due to the companies and personalities involved, as well as their implications. Can you clarify to me why topics along this(OPs) degree of polarization seem to get significantly more "institutional" support than many of the topics in the political/economic space that directly abut technology? I'm somewhat at a loss how the same standard that you asked readers in the thread in [1], "the ones that only stir up outrage, however justifiably, and don't also gratify intellectual curiosity, are not a good fit" wouldn't apply to this as well. [0](To not say this without some sort of reference, I have a track record of trying to speak out against these apparent contradictions, and realize I'm certainly opening myself up to attack here as I did in this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16577724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16577724, within a thread where you basically said "I guess this wasn't interesting enough because people flagged it" and it garnered far less of a defense than this topic has. The original topic for which that thread was posted did not even get a response, and was merely flagged into oblivion despite massive upvoting pressure.) [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16578331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16578331 Edit: personal curiosity, is it normal that my post appears minimized as dead/flagged posts typically do, even in the case that it's ostensibly not?

dang 9y ago
I'm finding this comment a little hard to follow, but let me try. Obviously people are always going to disagree about particular calls, but on a principles level, from my perspective, we're pretty consistent. If you're asking about the Haspel story, I wouldn't say that was an interesting new phenomenon in HN's sense, nor was there nearly enough information to feed a substantive discussion about it. To be honest that case wasn't even really a close call. Some new users got upset at us for moderating it, but as I tried to point out at the time, that was mostly because of unfamiliarity with how HN works. An intense political profile ("if they'd cover it on TV news", as the site guidelines say) often feels like information, but usually isn't, in HN's sense. That doesn't mean the story isn't significant. When we say a story is off topic here and/or when we turn off flags on a story, we're not judging the story's overall significance. We're concerned with whether it fits the site guidelines and whether the community is able to discuss it substantively. I think the answer to most of your questions probably lies in what kind of site HN is trying to be, and what kinds of site it is trying not to be.
- existencebox 9y ago
  Sorry for the ramble. The response is appreciated regardless. (Feel no compulsion to reply by the way, I just wanted to try and be more clear, I'm already grateful you took some time to try and answer.) To distill it: I don't share the perception that enforcement is consistent. Social/sexual topics REGULARLY frontpage with minimal scores, while economic/political topics regularly languish despite having both closer ties to our industry and relating to much more impactful individuals. To answer your own question "what sort of site HN is trying to be," I'd echo a statement the mods have made in the past, that it likely precludes topics that things like ET and chose your favorite tabloid has already covered to death by the time it shows up here, and primarily end up encouraging polarizing arguments without productive ends.
  - dang 9y ago
    I'm not sure it's true that social/sexual topics get more moderation support than economics topics. Both overlap with politics and both have intellectually interesting areas. From my point of view we moderate them much the same. Purely political stories are different. One of the most consistent phenomena I've observed here is that people's images of bias invariably reflect their own preferences. Users place a much higher weight on things they don't like than on things they do like. So to the extent that you prefer A stories to B stories, you're likely to feel there are way too many of B relative to A. You're welcome to let us know (hn@ycombinator.com) if you see a particularly interesting economics story that deserves a chance at attention. We can take a look and maybe put it in the second-chance queue, described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 and links back from there. What we look for in such an article is how much of a diff there is from other stories of the genre. If it's more substantive than usual, that's good; if it seems predictable or likely to lead to predictable discussions, that's bad. Same standard as we applied to this one.
andrewmcwatters 9y ago
Yeah, I really don't buy dang's statement on the matter. This is Entertainment Tonight content. It's quite literally something that would be in TV news. It's a shame of a situation, but I don't see what makes this any different.
jlgaddis 9y ago
> Edit: personal curiosity, is it normal that my post appears minimized as dead/flagged posts typically do, even in the case that it's ostensibly not? Similar to flagging/killing a comment/thread, the moderators can also "tag" (for lack of a better word) a comment/sub-thread so that it will show up collapsed. I think it's mostly intended to "hide" comments/sub-threads that may be off-topic or whatever and allow others to just scroll right past them and avoid the OT subthread. For me, at least, they seem to grav my attention and I then want to read them in order to satisfy my curiosity (which is what happened in this case).
- dang 9y ago
  Right. But perhaps it would be better to just detach this subthread. I've done that.
jlarocco 9y ago
I agree with the parent comment's sentiment. It makes no sense that this article and topic would be posted and discussed here. It's not intellectually stimulating, it's not technology related, and it's no more notable than any of the dozen other sex scandals that have come out lately. Paragraph two of the submission guidelines even specifically calls out this type of article as off-topic (emphasis added): > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
dang 9y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719973 and marked it off-topic.

dang 9y ago

I'm finding this comment a little hard to follow, but let me try. Obviously people are always going to disagree about particular calls, but on a principles level, from my perspective, we're pretty consistent. If you're asking about the Haspel story, I wouldn't say that was an interesting new phenomenon in HN's sense, nor was there nearly enough information to feed a substantive discussion about it. To be honest that case wasn't even really a close call. Some new users got upset at us for moderating it, but as I tried to point out at the time, that was mostly because of unfamiliarity with how HN works. An intense political profile ("if they'd cover it on TV news", as the site guidelines say) often feels like information, but usually isn't, in HN's sense. That doesn't mean the story isn't significant. When we say a story is off topic here and/or when we turn off flags on a story, we're not judging the story's overall significance. We're concerned with whether it fits the site guidelines and whether the community is able to discuss it substantively. I think the answer to most of your questions probably lies in what kind of site HN is trying to be, and what kinds of site it is trying not to be.

existencebox 9y ago
Sorry for the ramble. The response is appreciated regardless. (Feel no compulsion to reply by the way, I just wanted to try and be more clear, I'm already grateful you took some time to try and answer.) To distill it: I don't share the perception that enforcement is consistent. Social/sexual topics REGULARLY frontpage with minimal scores, while economic/political topics regularly languish despite having both closer ties to our industry and relating to much more impactful individuals. To answer your own question "what sort of site HN is trying to be," I'd echo a statement the mods have made in the past, that it likely precludes topics that things like ET and chose your favorite tabloid has already covered to death by the time it shows up here, and primarily end up encouraging polarizing arguments without productive ends.
- dang 9y ago
  I'm not sure it's true that social/sexual topics get more moderation support than economics topics. Both overlap with politics and both have intellectually interesting areas. From my point of view we moderate them much the same. Purely political stories are different. One of the most consistent phenomena I've observed here is that people's images of bias invariably reflect their own preferences. Users place a much higher weight on things they don't like than on things they do like. So to the extent that you prefer A stories to B stories, you're likely to feel there are way too many of B relative to A. You're welcome to let us know (hn@ycombinator.com) if you see a particularly interesting economics story that deserves a chance at attention. We can take a look and maybe put it in the second-chance queue, described at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380 and links back from there. What we look for in such an article is how much of a diff there is from other stories of the genre. If it's more substantive than usual, that's good; if it seems predictable or likely to lead to predictable discussions, that's bad. Same standard as we applied to this one.

andrewmcwatters 9y ago

Yeah, I really don't buy dang's statement on the matter. This is Entertainment Tonight content. It's quite literally something that would be in TV news. It's a shame of a situation, but I don't see what makes this any different.

jlgaddis 9y ago

> Edit: personal curiosity, is it normal that my post appears minimized as dead/flagged posts typically do, even in the case that it's ostensibly not? Similar to flagging/killing a comment/thread, the moderators can also "tag" (for lack of a better word) a comment/sub-thread so that it will show up collapsed. I think it's mostly intended to "hide" comments/sub-threads that may be off-topic or whatever and allow others to just scroll right past them and avoid the OT subthread. For me, at least, they seem to grav my attention and I then want to read them in order to satisfy my curiosity (which is what happened in this case).

dang 9y ago
Right. But perhaps it would be better to just detach this subthread. I've done that.

jlarocco 9y ago

I agree with the parent comment's sentiment. It makes no sense that this article and topic would be posted and discussed here. It's not intellectually stimulating, it's not technology related, and it's no more notable than any of the dozen other sex scandals that have come out lately. Paragraph two of the submission guidelines even specifically calls out this type of article as off-topic (emphasis added): > Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.

dang 9y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719973 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16719973 and marked it off-topic.