3 ms·

Happens here too, as others have pointed out. Just yesterday an article that went in depth on all different kinds of atmospheric water harvesting was filled wi

by Cogito 6y ago

Happens here too, as others have pointed out. Just yesterday an article that went in depth on all different kinds of atmospheric water harvesting was filled with comments on how this was 'debunked', despite some of the methods being used in practice (notably fog harvesting). Moreover, the article was discussing emerging changes in the technology and the hurdles they would face (it's almost always energy!) but none of the comments seemed to discuss that at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24241529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24241529

nabla9 6y ago
Most of the discussion today is buried under "reactions". People just state their shallow opinion and fight over them. I hope new more coherent way of discussion emerges again. In the Usenet there was custom of writing summaries. Article writer would direct the discussion. > Authors of articles occasionally say that readers should reply by mail and they'll summarize. Accordingly, readers should do just that---reply via mail. Responding with a followup article to such an article defeats the intention of the author. She, in a few days, will post one article containing the highlights of the responses she received. By following up to the whole group, the author may not read what you have to say. >When creating a summary of the replies to a post, try to make it as reader-friendly as possible. Avoid just putting all of the messages received into one big file. Rather, take some time and edit the messages into a form that contains the essential information that other readers would be interested in. >Also, sometimes people will respond but request to remain anonymous (one example is the employees of a corporation that feel the information's not proprietary, but at the same time want to protect themselves from political backlash). Summaries should honor this request accordingly by listing the From: address as anonymous or (Address withheld by request). https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC50 https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#...
troughway 6y ago
HN would need to make a significant number of changes for it to restore its signal ratio, including: 1. Flagging sources of information that are known to use clickbait tactics, stupid popups and generally low effort content. Paywalls can also be labeled as such. 2. Niceties like showing original title next to the updated one, or page title next to the submission title. I want to know what the original title was so I can appropriately shame the individual into trying to clickbait a boring topic onto the front page. 3. Downvotes should need to be justified and reviewed. A “I disagree with this comment because it offends me” is not a valid reason to bury good commentary. Happens too frequently. Remove showdead etc altogether. 4. Limited number of new seats for posting/commenting. Read-only for general public. Remove accounts that are regularly submitting garbage to the front page (happens more frequently than you think). This community has degraded over the years and it’s easily seen in most high volume commentaries. A lot of it is emotionally charged nonsense with people being “convinced” of things with nothing to show where they obtained such strong convictions. Dan shouldn’t moderate, he should outright ban, and in the process push the low effort armchairing to Reddit and other sites. HN is first and foremost a vehicle for YC ventures to post their stuff anyway. While I can understand people are optimistic that this site is somewhat more “intelligent” or “knowledgeable” about particular subjects compared to other sites, the range of that subject matter is so narrow that in majority of categories you’re more likely to find higher quality, insight and volume of posts elsewhere. Namely Reddit.

by Cogito 6y ago

nabla9 6y ago

Most of the discussion today is buried under "reactions". People just state their shallow opinion and fight over them. I hope new more coherent way of discussion emerges again. In the Usenet there was custom of writing summaries. Article writer would direct the discussion. > Authors of articles occasionally say that readers should reply by mail and they'll summarize. Accordingly, readers should do just that---reply via mail. Responding with a followup article to such an article defeats the intention of the author. She, in a few days, will post one article containing the highlights of the responses she received. By following up to the whole group, the author may not read what you have to say. >When creating a summary of the replies to a post, try to make it as reader-friendly as possible. Avoid just putting all of the messages received into one big file. Rather, take some time and edit the messages into a form that contains the essential information that other readers would be interested in. >Also, sometimes people will respond but request to remain anonymous (one example is the employees of a corporation that feel the information's not proprietary, but at the same time want to protect themselves from political backlash). Summaries should honor this request accordingly by listing the From: address as anonymous or (Address withheld by request). https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#SEC50 https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html#...

troughway 6y ago

HN would need to make a significant number of changes for it to restore its signal ratio, including: 1. Flagging sources of information that are known to use clickbait tactics, stupid popups and generally low effort content. Paywalls can also be labeled as such. 2. Niceties like showing original title next to the updated one, or page title next to the submission title. I want to know what the original title was so I can appropriately shame the individual into trying to clickbait a boring topic onto the front page. 3. Downvotes should need to be justified and reviewed. A “I disagree with this comment because it offends me” is not a valid reason to bury good commentary. Happens too frequently. Remove showdead etc altogether. 4. Limited number of new seats for posting/commenting. Read-only for general public. Remove accounts that are regularly submitting garbage to the front page (happens more frequently than you think). This community has degraded over the years and it’s easily seen in most high volume commentaries. A lot of it is emotionally charged nonsense with people being “convinced” of things with nothing to show where they obtained such strong convictions. Dan shouldn’t moderate, he should outright ban, and in the process push the low effort armchairing to Reddit and other sites. HN is first and foremost a vehicle for YC ventures to post their stuff anyway. While I can understand people are optimistic that this site is somewhat more “intelligent” or “knowledgeable” about particular subjects compared to other sites, the range of that subject matter is so narrow that in majority of categories you’re more likely to find higher quality, insight and volume of posts elsewhere. Namely Reddit.