5 ms·

So many people comment--on everything, not this post specifically--without reading anything more than the title of the HN post. They basically treat the title a

So many people comment--on everything, not this post specifically--without reading anything more than the title of the HN post. They basically treat the title as a "topic suggestion" instead of reading the article itself. It's a pretty annoying behavior because it means that discussions often end up wildly off-topic or with a lot of comments missing the point, or just re-stating the exact same things that the article already said (often because people ask questions that the article answered, but they didn't read it). Unfortunately there's not really any good way to fix it. We had a big discussion about this same issue on Tildes recently too: https://tild.es/gjb https://tild.es/gjb

gtirloni 7y ago
How about using a title that points to the real problem? "Google needs scheduled new app releases". Seems like a pretty good way to "fix" this, but I guess it wouldn't drive much traffic.
- Deimorz 7y ago
  That doesn't fix anything, it just changes the problem. I guarantee a popular post with a title like that would get comments saying "it already has them" from people that didn't read the article and don't know about the new review process and mandatory wait. Situations simply can't be covered well in a single sentence. That's a big part of why Twitter is such a terrible platform for discussing anything of substance, there's no room for context.
  - LordDragonfang 7y ago
    "Google increases app review time and removes timed releases [insert opinion]"
skybrian 7y ago
It seems like we're seeing the limitations of headline-only link submissions. Another symptom is focusing too much on getting headlines exactly right. I'm wondering if adding a Tweet-length summary or pull quote to some posts would help?
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  Like Slashdot does? It certainly has merit, but that requires that someone actually write the summary, which is more work and injects (more) subjectivity.
  - Rychard 7y ago
    You're absolutely right. I want less editorializing, not more.
c22 7y ago
I consider this a feature more than a bug. I don't come here for the links. They're the same links that get posted to all the other link aggregators. Often the content is disappointingly thin, poorly written, or just a ranting opinion. Usually the content is packaged with an inane amount of bandwidth-hogging privacy-invading tracking scripts and malware. I make a point of not clicking the link unless something in the comments leads me to believe it will be compelling. I come to hacker news to find out what the hacker news userbase thinks. I get a lot more value learning about a topic from the questions and answers smart people are posing to each other on a domain that isn't trying to cram garbage down my throat, even if they do end up rehashing one of the scant details or traipsing off-topic from the original submission.
- Dylan16807 7y ago
  You're talking about reading the comments before the post. That doesn't cause problems. The issue is for people making comments, and specifically comments about the article, without having read it.
  - c22 7y ago
    I totally get it. I'm just saying those comments don't bother me. Oftentimes they lead to a correction and more interesting conversation that, again, saves me from having to click the actual link. Of course I live for the comments where someone who has read the article posts a concise summary.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  >Usually the content is packaged with an inane amount of bandwidth-hogging privacy-invading tracking scripts and malware. And paywalls. Probably 1/4 of the time when I open a link "You've viewed your allotted 1 article this decade, please pay us $39.95 a month for access to our articles"
rhaksw 7y ago
You could make a quiz for articles using machine learning and allow commenters to optionally complete quiz questions before commenting to earn a flag that says they've read the article. It's not easy, but nothing worth doing is. And on the plus side, the question-answer problem already has a lot of contributed work [1]. And if you have a meager SE salary's worth to contribute I'm game to have a go at it =) [1] https://aclweb.org/aclwiki/Question_Answering_(State_of_the_art) https://aclweb.org/aclwiki/Question_Answering_(State_of_the_...

gtirloni 7y ago

How about using a title that points to the real problem? "Google needs scheduled new app releases". Seems like a pretty good way to "fix" this, but I guess it wouldn't drive much traffic.

Deimorz 7y ago
That doesn't fix anything, it just changes the problem. I guarantee a popular post with a title like that would get comments saying "it already has them" from people that didn't read the article and don't know about the new review process and mandatory wait. Situations simply can't be covered well in a single sentence. That's a big part of why Twitter is such a terrible platform for discussing anything of substance, there's no room for context.
- LordDragonfang 7y ago
  "Google increases app review time and removes timed releases [insert opinion]"

skybrian 7y ago

It seems like we're seeing the limitations of headline-only link submissions. Another symptom is focusing too much on getting headlines exactly right. I'm wondering if adding a Tweet-length summary or pull quote to some posts would help?

yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
Like Slashdot does? It certainly has merit, but that requires that someone actually write the summary, which is more work and injects (more) subjectivity.
- Rychard 7y ago
  You're absolutely right. I want less editorializing, not more.

c22 7y ago

I consider this a feature more than a bug. I don't come here for the links. They're the same links that get posted to all the other link aggregators. Often the content is disappointingly thin, poorly written, or just a ranting opinion. Usually the content is packaged with an inane amount of bandwidth-hogging privacy-invading tracking scripts and malware. I make a point of not clicking the link unless something in the comments leads me to believe it will be compelling. I come to hacker news to find out what the hacker news userbase thinks. I get a lot more value learning about a topic from the questions and answers smart people are posing to each other on a domain that isn't trying to cram garbage down my throat, even if they do end up rehashing one of the scant details or traipsing off-topic from the original submission.

Dylan16807 7y ago
You're talking about reading the comments before the post. That doesn't cause problems. The issue is for people making comments, and specifically comments about the article, without having read it.
- c22 7y ago
  I totally get it. I'm just saying those comments don't bother me. Oftentimes they lead to a correction and more interesting conversation that, again, saves me from having to click the actual link. Of course I live for the comments where someone who has read the article posts a concise summary.
ryanmercer 7y ago
>Usually the content is packaged with an inane amount of bandwidth-hogging privacy-invading tracking scripts and malware. And paywalls. Probably 1/4 of the time when I open a link "You've viewed your allotted 1 article this decade, please pay us $39.95 a month for access to our articles"

rhaksw 7y ago

You could make a quiz for articles using machine learning and allow commenters to optionally complete quiz questions before commenting to earn a flag that says they've read the article. It's not easy, but nothing worth doing is. And on the plus side, the question-answer problem already has a lot of contributed work [1]. And if you have a meager SE salary's worth to contribute I'm game to have a go at it =) [1] https://aclweb.org/aclwiki/Question_Answering_(State_of_the_art) https://aclweb.org/aclwiki/Question_Answering_(State_of_the_...