3 ms·

There's a lot of negativity in these comments (which is to be expected, as it is still HN after all) but I've been using the preview boxes for a while now and h

There's a lot of negativity in these comments (which is to be expected, as it is still HN after all) but I've been using the preview boxes for a while now and have to say that I absolutely love them. I use Wikipedia a LOT for primative/secondary research and being able to even just figure out the dates someone lived, the very basic information, or even sometimes just a photo saves me from so many instances of new-tab opening of links that I have to remember the context of after I'm done reading the passage. Really happy to see this is more available now EDIT: This is unrelated, but after reading more of the comments, I legitimately can't believe how absolutely disrespectful and hateful so many of these comments are in here. I appreciate this site as a place where you can express your opinions, even if they aren't just placid support of whoever the OP is, but I really don't want to see this community dive further and further into the echo chamber of hate that it seems to be becoming.

agentPrefect 8y ago
Absolutely agree.
barkingcat 8y ago
To be honest, it's been like this for a long time. If you haven't noticed the negativity, you've been reading a different "hacker's news" than everyone else on the internet.
- publicfig 8y ago
  To be fair, I've been a regular user under this account for 6 years now, and before that would visit frequently. I know there's always been that component to this place (it's a site publicly available on the web, it's inevitable) but it seems like there has been, maybe just through my perception, a strong rise in the ratio of valid criticism/complaints and seemingly spiteful comments that don't seem to want to accomplish anything other than to incite anger. I have always really appreciated the discussions around here!
ravenstine 8y ago
It's a very noticeable feature too. I was very delighted to recently discover it, and it really does help Wikipedia to continue to be the revolutionary platform it is. Kudos to those who implemented it.
abalone 8y ago
There's a rule against excessive negativity but respectful, constructive criticism is an important role that HN plays here. Here's a feature that wades into what is arguably browser vendor territory, rethinking the way that hyperlinks work.[1] Is it a good pattern we should adopt throughout the web? Does its on-by-defaut nature disrupt the reading experience? Does summarizing linked content have problems? What about mobile (now approx. half of traffic and growing)? I see a few comments using the word "hate" but for the most part the negative ones are just critical, with supporting points. I think a fundamental design pattern like this is worth some scrutiny alongside the support. [1] Case in point: Safari implemented a feature similar to this a few years ago. It works generally across all sites, uses reserved gestures (3D Touch on mobile, 3-finger-tap on desktop) to gives users full control, and sidesteps the whole summarization problem by using more screen real estate to just show a bigger preview.
- publicfig 8y ago
  Oh, I absolutely agree. I am in no way saying that constructive criticism (or hell, even warranted, non-constructive criticism sometimes) is fine and should be encouraged! The comments I was referring to (many have either been deleted or removed) were quite a bit less focused on constructive criticism than they were on just a barrage of insults towards the team responsible as if this decision was made intentionally just to spite them. I think your criticism is a really good one though, especially if these link previews can be harmful towards accessibility/make basic interactions more difficult. Like I mentioned, I enabled a similar beta feature a while back that was a bit difficult to get used to, but I have grown to find indispensable. I think in the same argument, however, you can argue against any sort of hover effects on the web (drop down menus, hover animations, etc.) and to be fair, it would be hard for me to disagree with that point on many instances of that as well.
  - abalone 8y ago
    My criticism is actually about lack of mobile support. I think it's not a good practice to invest years of effort solving a problem in a way that's fundamentally incompatible with mobile. Already nearly most traffic to wikipedia is mobile, and the share is growing.[1] Browser vendors seem better positioned to solve this problem. Indeed, my reaction to this was I've been doing this with Safari for years already (3 finger tap on macOS, light or long press on iOS). On wikipedia and all over the web. But I can see why Chrome/Firefox users would love this feature, if this is their first encounter with it. [1] https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#all-sites-by-os https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#all-sit...
lucideer 8y ago
Responding to your edit on respectful commenting, I can't see any disrespectful comments in this thread (and generally find discourse on HN better than other places). Have some been deleted? The top-level comments are mostly positive, with one or two constructively critical ones. There are one or two sub-comments with strongly worded criticism of Wikipedia's markup (the code holding the text), but none that mention people or are in any way ad hominem.
- jotux 8y ago
  I'm a little confused as well. I skimmed through the comments a second time to see if I missed something but none of the negative comments look especially disrespectful or hateful. Mostly just people complaining that they don't like pop-ups or find the feature useful. That said, I intentionally try to read text online in the most charitable voice possible, so maybe my perception is very different from others.
  - le-mark 8y ago
    Charity in discourse, particularly online, is good policy for everyone[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
- publicfig 8y ago
  I am not sure whether or not some have been deleted. When I made the edit earlier I noticed quite a few (some top level, but many secondary). I also usually find discourse on HN really a step above so many other sites I frequent! That's why it's been so disappointing to notice a rise in that kind of behavior for me lately (at least based off of my perception, of course).
yarrel 8y ago
Describing the comments here as "an echo chamber of hate" is inaccurate and serves to raise the temperature in itself.
- isaacremuant 8y ago
  It's inaccurate, it's distracting and it discourages people from contributing with criticism. It's an appeal to emotion, too. There are modding tools to make sure people aren't trolling or being too aggressive against other users but discourse shouldn't be censored due to offense.

agentPrefect 8y ago

Absolutely agree.

barkingcat 8y ago

To be honest, it's been like this for a long time. If you haven't noticed the negativity, you've been reading a different "hacker's news" than everyone else on the internet.

publicfig 8y ago
To be fair, I've been a regular user under this account for 6 years now, and before that would visit frequently. I know there's always been that component to this place (it's a site publicly available on the web, it's inevitable) but it seems like there has been, maybe just through my perception, a strong rise in the ratio of valid criticism/complaints and seemingly spiteful comments that don't seem to want to accomplish anything other than to incite anger. I have always really appreciated the discussions around here!

ravenstine 8y ago

It's a very noticeable feature too. I was very delighted to recently discover it, and it really does help Wikipedia to continue to be the revolutionary platform it is. Kudos to those who implemented it.

abalone 8y ago

There's a rule against excessive negativity but respectful, constructive criticism is an important role that HN plays here. Here's a feature that wades into what is arguably browser vendor territory, rethinking the way that hyperlinks work.[1] Is it a good pattern we should adopt throughout the web? Does its on-by-defaut nature disrupt the reading experience? Does summarizing linked content have problems? What about mobile (now approx. half of traffic and growing)? I see a few comments using the word "hate" but for the most part the negative ones are just critical, with supporting points. I think a fundamental design pattern like this is worth some scrutiny alongside the support. [1] Case in point: Safari implemented a feature similar to this a few years ago. It works generally across all sites, uses reserved gestures (3D Touch on mobile, 3-finger-tap on desktop) to gives users full control, and sidesteps the whole summarization problem by using more screen real estate to just show a bigger preview.

publicfig 8y ago
Oh, I absolutely agree. I am in no way saying that constructive criticism (or hell, even warranted, non-constructive criticism sometimes) is fine and should be encouraged! The comments I was referring to (many have either been deleted or removed) were quite a bit less focused on constructive criticism than they were on just a barrage of insults towards the team responsible as if this decision was made intentionally just to spite them. I think your criticism is a really good one though, especially if these link previews can be harmful towards accessibility/make basic interactions more difficult. Like I mentioned, I enabled a similar beta feature a while back that was a bit difficult to get used to, but I have grown to find indispensable. I think in the same argument, however, you can argue against any sort of hover effects on the web (drop down menus, hover animations, etc.) and to be fair, it would be hard for me to disagree with that point on many instances of that as well.
- abalone 8y ago
  My criticism is actually about lack of mobile support. I think it's not a good practice to invest years of effort solving a problem in a way that's fundamentally incompatible with mobile. Already nearly most traffic to wikipedia is mobile, and the share is growing.[1] Browser vendors seem better positioned to solve this problem. Indeed, my reaction to this was I've been doing this with Safari for years already (3 finger tap on macOS, light or long press on iOS). On wikipedia and all over the web. But I can see why Chrome/Firefox users would love this feature, if this is their first encounter with it. [1] https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#all-sites-by-os https://analytics.wikimedia.org/dashboards/browsers/#all-sit...

lucideer 8y ago

Responding to your edit on respectful commenting, I can't see any disrespectful comments in this thread (and generally find discourse on HN better than other places). Have some been deleted? The top-level comments are mostly positive, with one or two constructively critical ones. There are one or two sub-comments with strongly worded criticism of Wikipedia's markup (the code holding the text), but none that mention people or are in any way ad hominem.

jotux 8y ago
I'm a little confused as well. I skimmed through the comments a second time to see if I missed something but none of the negative comments look especially disrespectful or hateful. Mostly just people complaining that they don't like pop-ups or find the feature useful. That said, I intentionally try to read text online in the most charitable voice possible, so maybe my perception is very different from others.
- le-mark 8y ago
  Charity in discourse, particularly online, is good policy for everyone[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
publicfig 8y ago
I am not sure whether or not some have been deleted. When I made the edit earlier I noticed quite a few (some top level, but many secondary). I also usually find discourse on HN really a step above so many other sites I frequent! That's why it's been so disappointing to notice a rise in that kind of behavior for me lately (at least based off of my perception, of course).

yarrel 8y ago

Describing the comments here as "an echo chamber of hate" is inaccurate and serves to raise the temperature in itself.

isaacremuant 8y ago
It's inaccurate, it's distracting and it discourages people from contributing with criticism. It's an appeal to emotion, too. There are modding tools to make sure people aren't trolling or being too aggressive against other users but discourse shouldn't be censored due to offense.