4 ms·

Sure, no problem. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, just helping the other poster out by bringing it to their attention. In regards to the other unsubstan

Sure, no problem. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, just helping the other poster out by bringing it to their attention. In regards to the other unsubstantive comments, is it possible to know which ones you are referring to? I do add some comments which are short, is that what you are referring to? I know I should write longer comments to substantiate them.

dang 6y ago
By 'unsubstantive' I definitely don't mean comments which are short. Short-and-substantive comments, like these ones, are great: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26156431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26156431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25952507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25952507 Comments are unsubstantive when they don't add any new information—particularly comments that repeat things that have been repeated many times before. Within that set, the worst subset is comments that don't add new information and are stimuli to pre-existing conflicts. Those are not only unsubstantive but flamebait. Examples of those: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26137478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26137478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25836608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25836608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25886623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25886623 The issue here is not which side you're on, it's whether the comment makes the thread more interesting or less interesting. "Interesting" in HN's sense is a specialized use of the word. It doesn't just mean liking to put attention on something—it also has to do with why or, if you like, what part of one's brain circuitry is being activated. What we want to activate is curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and for that it's necessary to avoid the stronger forms of indignation, which go in curiosity-killing directions. The best way to consider whether a comment makes the thread more interesting or less interesting is to think not about the comment itself, but the expected value of the probable subthreads it will lead to. Note that this is not the same as the actual replies it ends up getting; you can't know that until later, but you can always ask yourself what the likely outcome of posting in a certain way will be. If there's new information there, the expected value gets higher; if there's provocation, the expected value gets much lower (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). We don't have these rules for ethical reasons—we're not trying to tell users what sort of people they should be. We have them for system design reasons—to try to solve the problem of how to operate an internet forum that doesn't suck (or at least sucks less), and doesn't destroy itself over time. That's in everyone's interest who participates here, regardless of what sort of people we all are, what our politics and ideologies and backgrounds all are, and so on.

dang 6y ago

By 'unsubstantive' I definitely don't mean comments which are short. Short-and-substantive comments, like these ones, are great: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26156431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26156431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25952507 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25952507 Comments are unsubstantive when they don't add any new information—particularly comments that repeat things that have been repeated many times before. Within that set, the worst subset is comments that don't add new information and are stimuli to pre-existing conflicts. Those are not only unsubstantive but flamebait. Examples of those: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26137478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26137478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25836608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25836608 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25886623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25886623 The issue here is not which side you're on, it's whether the comment makes the thread more interesting or less interesting. "Interesting" in HN's sense is a specialized use of the word. It doesn't just mean liking to put attention on something—it also has to do with why or, if you like, what part of one's brain circuitry is being activated. What we want to activate is curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...), and for that it's necessary to avoid the stronger forms of indignation, which go in curiosity-killing directions. The best way to consider whether a comment makes the thread more interesting or less interesting is to think not about the comment itself, but the expected value of the probable subthreads it will lead to. Note that this is not the same as the actual replies it ends up getting; you can't know that until later, but you can always ask yourself what the likely outcome of posting in a certain way will be. If there's new information there, the expected value gets higher; if there's provocation, the expected value gets much lower (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22expected%20value%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). We don't have these rules for ethical reasons—we're not trying to tell users what sort of people they should be. We have them for system design reasons—to try to solve the problem of how to operate an internet forum that doesn't suck (or at least sucks less), and doesn't destroy itself over time. That's in everyone's interest who participates here, regardless of what sort of people we all are, what our politics and ideologies and backgrounds all are, and so on.