4 ms·

I didn't downvote you because I don't understand your point. Presumably you're not saying that nobody should flag posts, because someone might post them again;

I didn't downvote you because I don't understand your point. Presumably you're not saying that nobody should flag posts, because someone might post them again; I don't think that makes sense. Are you saying that the dupe detection system should be better? Or that flagged posts should be visible or searchable in some way? Or are you just saying that you like this post and you don't think anyone should flag it? Personally, I don't think it's a big problem, although I'd really like a cleverer dupe detection mechanism. It's true that people tend to just re-submit the same links without searching, and that happens even when a post is not flagged -- there are often two active threads for a single topic on the front page. Flagging still acts to discourage a post, and the chance that someone will resubmit is just how it goes.

ColinWright 15y ago
To explain: Spam certainly should be flagged - no question. The problem is that there are stories that people think will be interesting, but which then get thoroughly discredited. Initially, no doubt, they should be flagged, and therefore deleted. Fine. But if they are submitted again then they should not be flagged. It's likely that they will be submitted again and again and again. Instead, the original should be pointed out, the fact that it's discredited recorded, and the submission left so the dupe-detector prevents any further submissions. In that way we learn from history. I thought that would be clear. Clearly it wasn't. I hope it's clearer now. <rant> As a programmer and mathematician I'm accustomed to being brief and succinct, letting my code or my readers get the point without having to expand it excessively. It seems to me that such was once possible on HN, but that now one's point must be written out in exquisite detail to avoid drive-by downvotes from people who don't bother to try to figure out the meaning. This isn't a dig at you - you didn't down-vote, and you did ask. To my mind that makes you one of the more valuable (potential) contributors. Indeed, I see that you have more karma and a higher average than I do. That supports my initial impression. I'm just getting a bit fed up with having to write so much of what I think is obvious. Maybe I'm just having a bad day. </rant>
- Helianthus 15y ago
  I find that HN in general is getting prickly. The paranoia-posts about becoming reddit are on the rise. The hacker news mindset is defensive and a little elitist, which means that throwaway posts or posts made a little thoughtlessly get quickly shunned. Which is fine, actually, in moderation. But there's some sense in which it's passe to be casual, it's uncool to be enthusiastic about HN, and in general we can't just be chill with each other. No more do I find this evident than how we make SNs green for newbs. It's almost the definition of elitist. If we truly care _only_ about post quality, it shouldn't matter whether someone is new. But the 'circle-the-wagons' mentality leads to intentional alienation.

ColinWright 15y ago

To explain: Spam certainly should be flagged - no question. The problem is that there are stories that people think will be interesting, but which then get thoroughly discredited. Initially, no doubt, they should be flagged, and therefore deleted. Fine. But if they are submitted again then they should not be flagged. It's likely that they will be submitted again and again and again. Instead, the original should be pointed out, the fact that it's discredited recorded, and the submission left so the dupe-detector prevents any further submissions. In that way we learn from history. I thought that would be clear. Clearly it wasn't. I hope it's clearer now. <rant> As a programmer and mathematician I'm accustomed to being brief and succinct, letting my code or my readers get the point without having to expand it excessively. It seems to me that such was once possible on HN, but that now one's point must be written out in exquisite detail to avoid drive-by downvotes from people who don't bother to try to figure out the meaning. This isn't a dig at you - you didn't down-vote, and you did ask. To my mind that makes you one of the more valuable (potential) contributors. Indeed, I see that you have more karma and a higher average than I do. That supports my initial impression. I'm just getting a bit fed up with having to write so much of what I think is obvious. Maybe I'm just having a bad day. </rant>

Helianthus 15y ago
I find that HN in general is getting prickly. The paranoia-posts about becoming reddit are on the rise. The hacker news mindset is defensive and a little elitist, which means that throwaway posts or posts made a little thoughtlessly get quickly shunned. Which is fine, actually, in moderation. But there's some sense in which it's passe to be casual, it's uncool to be enthusiastic about HN, and in general we can't just be chill with each other. No more do I find this evident than how we make SNs green for newbs. It's almost the definition of elitist. If we truly care _only_ about post quality, it shouldn't matter whether someone is new. But the 'circle-the-wagons' mentality leads to intentional alienation.