3 ms·

May I ask what classifies this comment as flamebait, what the concrete criteria are and some other examples? Thanks P.S. Alright, now I see, that it would be

May I ask what classifies this comment as flamebait, what the concrete criteria are and some other examples? Thanks P.S. Alright, now I see, that it would be under the "unrelated controversy" clause. Could you explain to me objectively how the parent comment doesn't fall under the same one too? And actually 40-50% of off-topic comments on HN? On top of that it is not completely unrelated either, as it is imo globally the second most prominent example of government miscalculation/cover up, the lack of accountability which followed it, etc.

dang 4y ago
> May I ask what classifies this comment as flamebait Well, for starters, switching to a highly divisive topic that has nothing to do with the original story; jacking up the indignation/inflammation levels; snark; and I suppose also the political reference. > Could you explain to me objectively how the parent comment doesn't fall under the same one too? I don't know about "objectively" because there's always interpretation involved—but I'd say the GP comment was quite a bit closer to the original topic; did not introduce a classic flamewar topic; contained more information than inflammation; and wasn't snarky.
- luciusdomitius 4y ago
  Alright. Could we get a list of those "forbidden topics" in such case. Besides, I don't see it starting a flame war - you are pretty much the only person who commented, but whatever. Apparently we are leaving in Peak Clown times LOL.
  - dang 4y ago
    I didn't say anything about forbidden topics. This is about comment quality, not topic. Note this, for example, from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." Re flamebait: I'm talking about what leads to flamewars in the statistical case. Suppose you drop a lit match in a dry forest. The argument "but it didn't cause a wildfire" is not a good one.

dang 4y ago

> May I ask what classifies this comment as flamebait Well, for starters, switching to a highly divisive topic that has nothing to do with the original story; jacking up the indignation/inflammation levels; snark; and I suppose also the political reference. > Could you explain to me objectively how the parent comment doesn't fall under the same one too? I don't know about "objectively" because there's always interpretation involved—but I'd say the GP comment was quite a bit closer to the original topic; did not introduce a classic flamewar topic; contained more information than inflammation; and wasn't snarky.

luciusdomitius 4y ago
Alright. Could we get a list of those "forbidden topics" in such case. Besides, I don't see it starting a flame war - you are pretty much the only person who commented, but whatever. Apparently we are leaving in Peak Clown times LOL.
- dang 4y ago
  I didn't say anything about forbidden topics. This is about comment quality, not topic. Note this, for example, from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." Re flamebait: I'm talking about what leads to flamewars in the statistical case. Suppose you drop a lit match in a dry forest. The argument "but it didn't cause a wildfire" is not a good one.