4 ms·

The problem is not that people didn't read the submission. The problem is that people commented without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. I just re

The problem is not that people didn't read the submission. The problem is that people commented without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. I just replied to a comment on the HAProxy 2.2 release. I haven't read the article yet, what I commented isn't related to changes in 2.2 - I was able to comment in a meaningful way (i.e. it's an opinion but it's an informed opinion) because of previous experience and knowledge of the topic. As with many problems, better "voting" of comments would likely solve this. If HN adopted reasoned voting (i.e. not just down votes, which lead to an echo chamber of whatever koolaid is flavour of the week) you could easily have a "Incorrect" or "Hasn't read TFA" downvote 'reason'. Combine that with better handling of downvoted comments (i.e. don't just fade them to oblivion, due the aforementioned koolaid circle jerk) and I believe people would use the voting system more effectively. Right now I simply refuse to downvote any comment, because it's just completely broken (and yet "working as intended" according to the PTB).

kerkeslager 6y ago
> The problem is not that people didn't read the submission. > The problem is that people commented without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. Right, but if you are commenting on a submission you haven't read, you don't know what you're talking about. > I just replied to a comment on the HAProxy 2.2 release. I haven't read the article yet, what I commented isn't related to changes in 2.2 - I was able to comment in a meaningful way (i.e. it's an opinion but it's an informed opinion) because of previous experience and knowledge of the topic. It sounds like while you didn't read the article, you read the thing you were commenting on, though--this isn't really the thing I'm criticizing. > If HN adopted reasoned voting (i.e. not just down votes, which lead to an echo chamber of whatever koolaid is flavour of the week) you could easily have a "Incorrect" or "Hasn't read TFA" downvote 'reason'. Tagging comments with "Didn't RTFA" would at least inform other readers that the opinion they're reading is uninformed.
- stephenr 6y ago
  > Right, but if you are commenting on a submission you haven't read, you don't know what you're talking about. Not at all. I literally gave you an example. Plenty of articles are about a topic people are sufficiently knowledgeable about to be able to discuss it at length without reading the article in question. > It sounds like while you didn't read the article, you read the thing you were commenting on, though--this isn't really the thing I'm criticizing. I'd suggest that at least 40% of comments on HN threads are discussion about the greater topic in general rather than the specific article itself. While this type of discussion can also include people who are commenting while uninformed, that doesn't mean that anyone who hasn't read the linked piece is uninformed about the topic. There are very few topics where there is literally only one singular article about it that is required reading to be considered "knowledgable".
  - kerkeslager 6y ago
    > Plenty of articles are about a topic people are sufficiently knowledgeable about to be able to discuss it at length without reading the article in question. What I mean is: the article is the topic. The comments I'm objecting to, are, for example, pointing out a problem with something said in the article, because they got to that paragraph, and then went to HN and posted their disagreement, without reading the very next paragraph where that objection is addressed. Even if they are very knowledgeable about the topic, this isn't a contribution to the discussion, it's a step back in the discussion--maybe they are an expert and could address the author's response to their objection too, but they don't, because they weren't arsed to read the thing they were responding to. > While this type of discussion can also include people who are commenting while uninformed, that doesn't mean that anyone who hasn't read the linked piece is uninformed about the topic. Agreed, but it does mean they are uninformed about the linked piece, which hinders discussion if they're just repeating things said in the piece, objecting to things already addressed in the piece, or whatever. Being an expert on the topic of an article doesn't prevent this.
    - stephenr 6y ago
      Right - so I still think some kind of user flagging/voting is the solution there, rather than eg weird click tracking timeouts.
      - kerkeslager 6y ago
        Well, I'll agree that weird click tracking timeouts isn't the solution. I don't think flagging/voting is either, though, at least in its current form.
        stephenr 6y ago
        > in its current form This is the key issue, IMO.
collyw 6y ago
> The problem is that people commented without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. HN is a lot better than most places. That is certainly true for tech related stuff. Financial stuff seems fairly good here - I assume enough people work in fintech to bring the knowledge level up. Politics is a bit more hit and miss, but there isn't really as much right and wrong. Spends an hour on Reddit and you will see how bad things can get (mainstream subreddits - Reddit can still be good for niche stuff).
- stephenr 6y ago
  > That is certainly true for tech related stuff. Compared to what? > Spends an hour on Reddit and you will see how bad things can get If your argument is "well its better than Reddit" you have no argument. Or if you prefer analogies: that's like saying "eating broken glass isn't that bad, eat a plate of razor blades and you will see how bad things can get".
  - collyw 6y ago
    Compared to the average site with user generated content. Do you have an example of something similar that displays better knowledge than HN on a fairly wide variety of topics? Otherwise you have no argument.

kerkeslager 6y ago

> The problem is not that people didn't read the submission. > The problem is that people commented without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. Right, but if you are commenting on a submission you haven't read, you don't know what you're talking about. > I just replied to a comment on the HAProxy 2.2 release. I haven't read the article yet, what I commented isn't related to changes in 2.2 - I was able to comment in a meaningful way (i.e. it's an opinion but it's an informed opinion) because of previous experience and knowledge of the topic. It sounds like while you didn't read the article, you read the thing you were commenting on, though--this isn't really the thing I'm criticizing. > If HN adopted reasoned voting (i.e. not just down votes, which lead to an echo chamber of whatever koolaid is flavour of the week) you could easily have a "Incorrect" or "Hasn't read TFA" downvote 'reason'. Tagging comments with "Didn't RTFA" would at least inform other readers that the opinion they're reading is uninformed.

stephenr 6y ago
> Right, but if you are commenting on a submission you haven't read, you don't know what you're talking about. Not at all. I literally gave you an example. Plenty of articles are about a topic people are sufficiently knowledgeable about to be able to discuss it at length without reading the article in question. > It sounds like while you didn't read the article, you read the thing you were commenting on, though--this isn't really the thing I'm criticizing. I'd suggest that at least 40% of comments on HN threads are discussion about the greater topic in general rather than the specific article itself. While this type of discussion can also include people who are commenting while uninformed, that doesn't mean that anyone who hasn't read the linked piece is uninformed about the topic. There are very few topics where there is literally only one singular article about it that is required reading to be considered "knowledgable".
- kerkeslager 6y ago
  > Plenty of articles are about a topic people are sufficiently knowledgeable about to be able to discuss it at length without reading the article in question. What I mean is: the article is the topic. The comments I'm objecting to, are, for example, pointing out a problem with something said in the article, because they got to that paragraph, and then went to HN and posted their disagreement, without reading the very next paragraph where that objection is addressed. Even if they are very knowledgeable about the topic, this isn't a contribution to the discussion, it's a step back in the discussion--maybe they are an expert and could address the author's response to their objection too, but they don't, because they weren't arsed to read the thing they were responding to. > While this type of discussion can also include people who are commenting while uninformed, that doesn't mean that anyone who hasn't read the linked piece is uninformed about the topic. Agreed, but it does mean they are uninformed about the linked piece, which hinders discussion if they're just repeating things said in the piece, objecting to things already addressed in the piece, or whatever. Being an expert on the topic of an article doesn't prevent this.
  - stephenr 6y ago
    Right - so I still think some kind of user flagging/voting is the solution there, rather than eg weird click tracking timeouts.
    - kerkeslager 6y ago
      Well, I'll agree that weird click tracking timeouts isn't the solution. I don't think flagging/voting is either, though, at least in its current form.
      - stephenr 6y ago
        > in its current form This is the key issue, IMO.

collyw 6y ago

> The problem is that people commented without knowing what the fuck they're talking about. HN is a lot better than most places. That is certainly true for tech related stuff. Financial stuff seems fairly good here - I assume enough people work in fintech to bring the knowledge level up. Politics is a bit more hit and miss, but there isn't really as much right and wrong. Spends an hour on Reddit and you will see how bad things can get (mainstream subreddits - Reddit can still be good for niche stuff).

stephenr 6y ago
> That is certainly true for tech related stuff. Compared to what? > Spends an hour on Reddit and you will see how bad things can get If your argument is "well its better than Reddit" you have no argument. Or if you prefer analogies: that's like saying "eating broken glass isn't that bad, eat a plate of razor blades and you will see how bad things can get".
- collyw 6y ago
  Compared to the average site with user generated content. Do you have an example of something similar that displays better knowledge than HN on a fairly wide variety of topics? Otherwise you have no argument.