5 ms·

I have thought for some time that votes should come in two flavors. X if you make a comment, X/10 if you don't. Drive-by voting is of little value, and for ab

I have thought for some time that votes should come in two flavors. X if you make a comment, X/10 if you don't. Drive-by voting is of little value, and for abusive posts that need downvoting we have flagging to accomplish quick removal. Giving more weight to people who write a reply would encourage more conversation. Of course, then there is a question of whether it would encourage more thoughtful comments or not, and I cannot answer that.

warrenm 5y ago
Social voting is broken - and probably shouldn't exist (https://antipaucity.com/2015/09/16/like-problems-social-voting-is-a-bad-idea/#.Yg56sd9OlAc https://antipaucity.com/2015/09/16/like-problems-social-voti...) That said, I'm not asking for notifications on upvotes (like Stack Overflow does) I'm asking for the basic functionality of all internet fora I've interacted with for the last close to 30 years that tell you if you have any replies
- ziggus 5y ago
  HN isn't a forum.
  - warrenm 5y ago
    ...says the person replying to a comment ;)
    - ziggus 5y ago
      Allowing comments on a news aggregator doesn't mean it's a forum. The fact that HN purposely doesn't have much of the standard functionality of a forum should clue you in to the fact that it isn't one.
      - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
        https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forum#Noun https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forum#Noun forum, noun: An Internet message board where users can post messages regarding one or more topics of discussion. HN is clearly a forum.
dredmorbius 5y ago
Collaborative filtering ... has issues. Most simple or single-factor fixes don't address the larger problems. Much of the time, it tends to amplify interesting, and diminish nonproductive contributions. Spam, trolling, clickbait, and vacuous responses seem to get quickly downvoted and flagged on HN, which is good. Comment voting has numerous other connotations, however. - Simple and short expressions tend to be disproportionately upvoted. They're easier to assess. Sometimes they are insightful, most often, only tapping a common sentiment. - Controversial views tend to be downvoted. Sometimes controversy is flamebait, sometimes it isn't. There's not much distinction made between the two. - Truth isn't a popularity contest. HN often, but not always, avoids this trap. True expertise in complex topics is rare, but at times necessary. An epistemic system should reflect this to a greater extent (though also be aware of misuses of such claims of expertise or authority). - Topics strongly shaped by remunerative interests, ideological alignments, and tribal allegiances tend to perform most poorly under popular voting systems. There is a List of Things HN Cannot Discuss, and most of these seem to fall under this umbrella. Dang has voiced frustration with this on occasion, and I've had numerous email discussions with him about this ... more in the past than recently, I think. HN is guided to an extent by its moderator team. It is not directly steered by them. And the overall philosophy is broader than critics of the principle current political tribes seem to admit. Collaborative filtering / the wisdom of crowds was all the rage in the late 1990s / early 2000s. Whilst it has some uses, there's been an overreliance on it. I'm not entirely sure how best to patch the system, though I have some thoughts. - Bounding ratings to a range rather than a simple sum seems more useful. - Weighting individual's ratings by their own assigned mean similarly. If someone always hands out 5s (on a 1--5 scale), then those are re-scaled to a median score. Rescaling ranges similarly: someone offering only 1s and 5s might see that rescaled to 2 & 4 repectively. - Factoring in expertise, or rescaling based on other factors such as truth, tone, conciseness, accuracy, references, etc., might help. Goodhart's law applies. But sometimes, what you want isn't the average opinion of the passengers, but a competent pilot. Another point is that HN doesn't aim simply to be a place where truth is sought, but a conversational platform. Excessive strictness would probably diminish this.

warrenm 5y ago

Social voting is broken - and probably shouldn't exist (https://antipaucity.com/2015/09/16/like-problems-social-voting-is-a-bad-idea/#.Yg56sd9OlAc https://antipaucity.com/2015/09/16/like-problems-social-voti...) That said, I'm not asking for notifications on upvotes (like Stack Overflow does) I'm asking for the basic functionality of all internet fora I've interacted with for the last close to 30 years that tell you if you have any replies

ziggus 5y ago
HN isn't a forum.
- warrenm 5y ago
  ...says the person replying to a comment ;)
  - ziggus 5y ago
    Allowing comments on a news aggregator doesn't mean it's a forum. The fact that HN purposely doesn't have much of the standard functionality of a forum should clue you in to the fact that it isn't one.
    - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forum#Noun https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/forum#Noun forum, noun: An Internet message board where users can post messages regarding one or more topics of discussion. HN is clearly a forum.

dredmorbius 5y ago

Collaborative filtering ... has issues. Most simple or single-factor fixes don't address the larger problems. Much of the time, it tends to amplify interesting, and diminish nonproductive contributions. Spam, trolling, clickbait, and vacuous responses seem to get quickly downvoted and flagged on HN, which is good. Comment voting has numerous other connotations, however. - Simple and short expressions tend to be disproportionately upvoted. They're easier to assess. Sometimes they are insightful, most often, only tapping a common sentiment. - Controversial views tend to be downvoted. Sometimes controversy is flamebait, sometimes it isn't. There's not much distinction made between the two. - Truth isn't a popularity contest. HN often, but not always, avoids this trap. True expertise in complex topics is rare, but at times necessary. An epistemic system should reflect this to a greater extent (though also be aware of misuses of such claims of expertise or authority). - Topics strongly shaped by remunerative interests, ideological alignments, and tribal allegiances tend to perform most poorly under popular voting systems. There is a List of Things HN Cannot Discuss, and most of these seem to fall under this umbrella. Dang has voiced frustration with this on occasion, and I've had numerous email discussions with him about this ... more in the past than recently, I think. HN is guided to an extent by its moderator team. It is not directly steered by them. And the overall philosophy is broader than critics of the principle current political tribes seem to admit. Collaborative filtering / the wisdom of crowds was all the rage in the late 1990s / early 2000s. Whilst it has some uses, there's been an overreliance on it. I'm not entirely sure how best to patch the system, though I have some thoughts. - Bounding ratings to a range rather than a simple sum seems more useful. - Weighting individual's ratings by their own assigned mean similarly. If someone always hands out 5s (on a 1--5 scale), then those are re-scaled to a median score. Rescaling ranges similarly: someone offering only 1s and 5s might see that rescaled to 2 & 4 repectively. - Factoring in expertise, or rescaling based on other factors such as truth, tone, conciseness, accuracy, references, etc., might help. Goodhart's law applies. But sometimes, what you want isn't the average opinion of the passengers, but a competent pilot. Another point is that HN doesn't aim simply to be a place where truth is sought, but a conversational platform. Excessive strictness would probably diminish this.