4 ms·

Hi, dang! I wonder if it makes sense to add a summarized version of your critical point on "effects, not intent" to the HN guidelines. Though, I fear there mig

Hi, dang! I wonder if it makes sense to add a summarized version of your critical point on "effects, not intent" to the HN guidelines. Though, I fear there might be undesirable ill effects of spelling it out that way. Thanks (an understatement!) for this enlightening explanation.

dang 4y ago
There are so many heuristics like that, and I fear making the guidelines so long that no one will read them. I want to compound a bunch of those explanations into a sort of concordance or whatever the right bibliographic word is for explaining and adding to what's written else where (so, not concordance!)
- bombcar 4y ago
  Commentary or gloss on the text, I believe, is sometimes used.
  - dang 4y ago
    You're correct, but there are other more precise words that come from hermeneutics and whatnot. Grad school was a long time ago.
- kashyapc 4y ago
  Fair enough. Yeah your plans of "compounding" and "bibliographic concordance" (thanks for the new word) sound good. I was going to suggest this (but scratch it, your above idea is better): A small section called "a note on moderation" (or whatever) with hyperlinks to "some examples that give a concrete sense of how moderation happens here". There are many excellent explanations buried deep in the the search links that you post here. Many of them are a valuable riffing on [internet] human nature. As a quick example, I love your lively analogy[1] of a "boxer showing up at a dance/concert/lecture" for resisting flammable language here. It's funny and a cutting example that is impossible to misunderstand. It (and your other comment[2] from the same thread) makes so many valuable reminders (it's easy to forget!). An incomplete list for others reading: - how to avoid the "scorched earth" fate here; - how "raw self-interest is fine" (if it gets you to curiosity); - why you can't "flamebait others into curiosity"; - why the "medium" [of the "optionally anonymous internet forum"] matters; - why it's not practical to replicate the psychology of "small, cohesive groups" here; - how the "burden is on the commenter"; - "expected value of a comment" on HN; and much more It's a real shame that these useful heuristics are buried so deep in the comment history. Sure, you do link to them via searches whenever you can; that's how I discovered 'em. But it's hard to stumble upon otherwise. Making a sampling of these easily accessible can be valuable. [1] 3rd paragraph here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27166919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27166919 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27162386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27162386
  - dang 4y ago
    Thanks for reading and absorbing those old comments—I always leave them in the hope that someday somebody will :)
- PebblesRox 4y ago
  Someday I hope you will write a whole book on the subject!

dang 4y ago

There are so many heuristics like that, and I fear making the guidelines so long that no one will read them. I want to compound a bunch of those explanations into a sort of concordance or whatever the right bibliographic word is for explaining and adding to what's written else where (so, not concordance!)

bombcar 4y ago
Commentary or gloss on the text, I believe, is sometimes used.
- dang 4y ago
  You're correct, but there are other more precise words that come from hermeneutics and whatnot. Grad school was a long time ago.
kashyapc 4y ago
Fair enough. Yeah your plans of "compounding" and "bibliographic concordance" (thanks for the new word) sound good. I was going to suggest this (but scratch it, your above idea is better): A small section called "a note on moderation" (or whatever) with hyperlinks to "some examples that give a concrete sense of how moderation happens here". There are many excellent explanations buried deep in the the search links that you post here. Many of them are a valuable riffing on [internet] human nature. As a quick example, I love your lively analogy[1] of a "boxer showing up at a dance/concert/lecture" for resisting flammable language here. It's funny and a cutting example that is impossible to misunderstand. It (and your other comment[2] from the same thread) makes so many valuable reminders (it's easy to forget!). An incomplete list for others reading: - how to avoid the "scorched earth" fate here; - how "raw self-interest is fine" (if it gets you to curiosity); - why you can't "flamebait others into curiosity"; - why the "medium" [of the "optionally anonymous internet forum"] matters; - why it's not practical to replicate the psychology of "small, cohesive groups" here; - how the "burden is on the commenter"; - "expected value of a comment" on HN; and much more It's a real shame that these useful heuristics are buried so deep in the comment history. Sure, you do link to them via searches whenever you can; that's how I discovered 'em. But it's hard to stumble upon otherwise. Making a sampling of these easily accessible can be valuable. [1] 3rd paragraph here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27166919 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27166919 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27162386 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27162386
- dang 4y ago
  Thanks for reading and absorbing those old comments—I always leave them in the hope that someday somebody will :)
PebblesRox 4y ago
Someday I hope you will write a whole book on the subject!