3 ms·

I get the apprehension to try it yourself, even HN is a difficult forum for some conversations. I respect your decision to not try to edit the title yourself. B

I get the apprehension to try it yourself, even HN is a difficult forum for some conversations. I respect your decision to not try to edit the title yourself. But do you see how frustrating it is to be called out for my editorializing, which is essentially a UX limitation of the forum? Asking for explicit guidance from a moderator gets me pretty much nothing. You’re telling me I’m wrong, but you won’t really tell me in any explicit way how to do better, which I believe is a moderator’s responsibility. I don’t know how to do better other than to communicate is as clear terms as I can that I don’t know what to do. I’ve made a case for why this story is relevant, and I feel it’s pretty strong. If legislation that’s facing a full senate vote around online privacy isn’t in the interest of a forum built by hackers, then I’ll take my ball and go home. I just haven’t heard a good reason why this shouldn’t be on-topic yet.

dang 6y ago
On the title, I think we've had some crossed signals. I explained in detail how I would have gone about editing it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172812. I've gone ahead and changed the title now. That's just a surface problem though. The root problem was perhaps this particular article was so much on the advocacy side that it became hard to tell to what degree this was a high-signal story for HN. Maybe this sounds weird to you, but if you saw the myriads of such articles that get posted here, you'd probably have the same issue—either that or you'd be fine with HN turning into an advocacy site. It's in the interests of such sites to have as many such articles as possible, and to make them as dramatic as possible. That's fine, it's their job, but it's HN's job to try to filter those for the unusually significant ones, as I've been trying unsuccessfully to explain. In the time that we've been having this discussion, another article made the front page on the same topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172870.

dang 6y ago

On the title, I think we've had some crossed signals. I explained in detail how I would have gone about editing it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172812. I've gone ahead and changed the title now. That's just a surface problem though. The root problem was perhaps this particular article was so much on the advocacy side that it became hard to tell to what degree this was a high-signal story for HN. Maybe this sounds weird to you, but if you saw the myriads of such articles that get posted here, you'd probably have the same issue—either that or you'd be fine with HN turning into an advocacy site. It's in the interests of such sites to have as many such articles as possible, and to make them as dramatic as possible. That's fine, it's their job, but it's HN's job to try to filter those for the unusually significant ones, as I've been trying unsuccessfully to explain. In the time that we've been having this discussion, another article made the front page on the same topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172870 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23172870.