3 ms·
To me a few things: - dang’s moderation and example - no images - no intentional sub-cultures - smaller audience - topical - charmingly ugly - a generall
by jcims 5y ago
To me a few things:
- dang’s moderation and example
- no images
- no intentional sub-cultures
- smaller audience
- topical
- charmingly ugly
- a generally invested community that appreciates this is a special outcome
The interesting thing to me is that Slashdot shares many of these attributes, has a relatively sophisticated moderation feature and is a cesspool. It feels like a ship adrift in the Caribbean and the fourth generation of rats born on the vessel are at war.
The primary difference IMHO is dang. Anytime I think about the overall quality of HN, his efforts bubble to the surface of my mind as the primary causal factor.
- joconde 5y agoThe people who make Slashdot a cesspool probably pushed the reasonable ones out, and the refuge for these is HN. The same could probably happen here at some point, but people who want a civil forum could simply move elsewhere if that happens. It helps that something like HN can be easily duplicated, so there will probably always be a space like HN where interesting and civil discussions happen.
- KineticLensman 5y ago> The primary difference IMHO is dang. I certainly agree that dang's moderation is excellent and contributes to the uniqueness of HN. But "+5 Funny" on Slashdot was a big driver in the other direction, rewarding the endless hot grits and Cowboy Neal humour, which usually drowned out more sophisticated comments.
- jcims 5y agoTotally agree. I think the intent was to let people focus on the types of comment they want, but it just ended up gamifying moderation. Which reminds me of another HN feature that I think is material to its ability to sustain its culture: - Private vote counts