23 ms·
Hacker News Guidelines
- jeron 3y agoGood reminder, it would be easier for moderators if more people followed
- ateng 3y agoThe world of internet would be a _much_ better place if everyone at least have read this. I tried my best to adhere to these rules in any social network.
- Tao3300 3y agoWherever you go, always do unto others as you would do when dang is watching.
- bombcar 3y agoMeaning that about 14 hours out of the day you can do whatever you want muahauahha Up that to 25 hours a day if on IPv6!
- DonHopkins 3y agoFonebone is watching you the other 14 hours. https://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2014/08/22/don-martin-fonebone-is-watching-you https://www.madmagazine.com/blog/2014/08/22/don-martin-foneb...
- 93po 3y agoLeave everywhere slightly better than you found it
- roflyear 3y agoIt is unfortunate that the rules are so vague/up for interpretation, and when you break them, it isn't explained to you that you broke them. The rule just gets cited and there you go.
- kelnos 3y agoI've found that dang is very open to discussion about these sorts of things. He's only an email away, and usually responds quickly.
- lazyasciiart 3y agoI've found the complete opposite: it took years to even get a dismissive response, and longer to get him to actually bother looking into what I wrote. Depends whether you pass his initial guess at whether you have a real issue or are trolling him, apparently.
- fullshark 3y ago> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics I'd welcome a firmer hand on eliminating these submissions.
- tantalor 3y agoThe existing moderation works fine. I bet if you looked through recent stories that made the front page, <1% would be classified as "about politics".
- thinkingemote 3y agoDepends on the time of day, UK morning time before east coast USA wakes up there's always one or two political posts which get quite a bit of attention. However they quickly go from the front page after a few hours. I've noticed some San Francisco specific post appearing too at similar hours. These generally get more comments but as before usually go after some time. --- Personally, some political stuff is fine, interesting and worthy of comment. I do find myself replying and then deleting my comments on those threads after I realise the discussion is meaningless.
- rgrieselhuber 3y agoIt depends on the context. Obviously partisan politics don’t really have a place here but metapolitical critiques of the technology known as bureaucracy (which is pervasive in government, science, everywhere really) and how well it is or is not working is definitely relevant from a systems perspective, imo.
- minimaxir 3y agoGenerally submissions about politics without any tech angle do get flagged. Politics that do have a tech angle (e.g. SEC/FTC actions, net neutrality) are more on-topic.
- robmccoll 3y agoI'd like clarification of whether politics is meant to cover matters of policy or strictly partisan politics and news about the lives of political figures. Surely regulatory policy with regards to technology, communications infrastructure, and similar is of interest.
- ajonit 3y agoWhile you are there, go through dang’s comments timeline https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang Moderating something like HN is a very hard job. Gratitude .
- solardev 3y agoYeah. In 30 years of being on the Internet, dang is probably the single best moderator I've ever met. Thank you SO much for what you do. We should all get together and throw him a virtual party...
- pknerd 3y agodoes SO means Stackoverflow here? kidding
- bowsamic 3y agoI understand why but I don’t like how people are individually rate limited silently without their knowledge. It is certainly immoral EDIT: unfortunately I cannot defend my point in the comments, as I am now rate limited :) EDIT 2: /u/Dylan16807 yes I'm seeing that. When I try and post it says "you are posting too quickly, please slow down"
- whimsicalism 3y agoWhen I was rate-limited, I found it quite easy to find out what happened after a little bit of googling and get it reversed with a nicely worded email. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why you can't really post after a reply from dang. Nonetheless, I agree they could be a bit more explicit about this.
- bowsamic 3y ago> It doesn't take a genius to figure out why you can't really post after a reply from dang. Well actually it does because you're wrong about this, it isn't about him replying to you, he manually sets a flag on your account.
- hfeqah5ehae 3y ago[flagged]
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoThe one thing I wish was added - either in the guidelines or as a change to the actual web UI - was replying to a comment that you're downvoting; it's frustrating both to have one's own comments downvoted without explanation, and to come across a comment that's grey without obvious reason (Was it factually incorrect? Endorsing an unpopular idea? It's not always obvious). (I'm not saying HN should do exactly the same thing, but one example is Slashdot's system where a comment can get downvoted in a way that tags it specifically as trolling/offtopic/whatever - https://slashdot.org/faq/mod-metamod.shtml https://slashdot.org/faq/mod-metamod.shtml seems to describe it alright)
- jedberg 3y agoIt's an interesting idea, but you'd end up with a situation where the worse the comment, the more discussion it generates due to the forced replies, which is sort of the opposite of what you want.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y agoPerhaps a system where a comment can only be downvoted if it has at least one reply? So someone has to explain, but only once
- jedberg 3y agoA perhaps viable idea. You should email it in and see what they say.
- hutzlibu 3y agoI think some sites have a feature, that when you downvote, you have to add some words/tags to why you downvote. I like that idea, it gives the commenter some concrete feedback, but also the downvoter a moment for reflection (is this really a bad comment, or do I just have a bite reflex because its language sounds like a (ideological) side I hate?) I know that I have stupidly taken some downvotes personally, but later realized, those comments were maybe not bad by itself, but in that context attracting flamewar OT debates. With some extra words, I would have realized sooner. And downvoting for merely not liking someones opinion is something I really don't like, but is explicitely allowed here.
- sgarman 3y ago> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. As internet communities evolve over the years I have seen some changes in HN posts and comments but I suspect HN not trying to grow at any cost has done a good job of keeping it from becoming reddit.
- minimaxir 3y agoThat line is more than a decade old where the comparisons were more obvious, especially given Reddit's YC origins.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Tao3300 3y agoThe real issue with Reddit is the capricious insanity of the mods. I got banned from enough subs over total nonsense that I just quit the whole thing. It makes sense though, the mods are unpaid volunteers doing work that people generally don't appreciate and often criticize. You'd have to be a crazed zealot to sign up for that. All that to say HN is nothing like that.
- blackmesaind 3y agoI've never once been banned from a subreddit, no matter the size nor the frequency of my posts. I assume it's because I don't participate in the divisive dialogue so pervasive on Reddit. You'll find weak people with great power anywhere, I suppose.
- canvascritic 3y agoA mentor once said to me something to the effect of "don't optimize for the noise - optimize for signal" These guidelines, in many ways, embody that sentiment. While some might complain they are restrictive and harsh (I think, for example, of new commenters being met with a swift downvote to oblivion when they comment "me too!" or "cool!" on a thread), I view them as a way to elevate discourse, prioritizing the depth and quality of conversation over fleeting internet trends, a beacon of light in this sorry internet that mostly devalues thoughtful discourse and inquiry. Understanding the dynamics of a community and its shared norms can be as important, if not more so, than the actual content. in nurturing a thoughtful environment, in particular an environment that nurtures curiosity and civil discourse, we're not just preserving the present, but serving as role models for tomorrow's communities. personally I'm glad that HN emphasizes intellectual curiosity and mutual respect. this is truly a special place
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- metadaemon 3y agoThese are great guidelines in general for building a healthy community.
- naillo 3y agoThe only one I subtly disagree with is "comments should be substantive". What it discourages I think is comments like "thanks" or other really 'unsubstantive' comments. It's true that maybe it adds noise, and in many cases are maybe supposed to be inferred without explicitly saying. But I think discouraging this slightly leans behaviour towards snark vs not. (If you see comments like "thanks" you're less likely to be snarky than if you see 'substantive' but maybe too harsh critiques in the comments that appear because "cool project!" isn't allowed.) Personally I like to make it a point to break this rule from time to time to reduce this pattern.
- bdcravens 3y agoYes, but it also discourages "cool story bro", "ok boomer", "no cap" etc
- 1123581321 3y agoSame. I think it's especially important to thank someone when they might otherwise assume you'll want to pick apart with their response to you, after you've asked them to write it. One feature I've thought of would be for someone in a conversation thread to know if the other participant upvoted their last comment. Giving someone an upvote and not replying would send a strong positive signal without taking up more space.
- SushiHippie 3y agoThat is okay Comment from dang: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37030249 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37030249
- permo-w 3y agowhether it's allowed or not is probably less pertinent than whether it'll get downvoted. I've never seen a flagged comment that was just "thanks", but I suspect I probably have seen a heavily downvoted one, although I can't think of a specific example
- lapcat 3y agoIMO the guidelines could use some updates. For example, there are some unwritten conventions that could be formalized: 1) Search for duplicates before you submit a link. 2) If the submission is not from the current year, append (YEAR) at the end of the title. 3) It should be clarified that the guidelines about comments apply to linked article authors too. "Be kind. Don't be snarky." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work." 4) There's dang's own idiosyncratic, controversial, unwritten exception to "Please submit the original source", i.e., unless it's a corporate PR. [EDIT:] Three different replies have said to append [pdf] and [video] to submissions, but that's already in the guidelines. "If you submit a video or pdf, please warn us by appending [video] or [pdf] to the title."
- tomashubelbauer 3y agoAFAIK (I saw dang state this a few times in his comments) it is fine to submit duplicates to HN assuming enough time has passed (a year?). He'll even reach into the second change pool and re-submit submissions that did not gain much traction the first time around, I think. So I think your first rule isn't really something that is much enforced on HN. (Which I think is a good thing.)
- DavidPeiffer 3y agoI hadn't heard about the 2nd chance pool until I submitted an article and he emailed me to say he was going to 2nd chance it. That was a really neat mod intervention I wasn't expecting but really appreciated.
- lapcat 3y agoThat's in the FAQ: "If a story has not had significant attention in the last year or so, a small number of reposts is ok. Otherwise we bury reposts as duplicates." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
- 3y ago
- Pannoniae 3y agoThere's really one thing missing from the guidelines IMO - "don't downvote for disagreement, downvote for offtopic/flamebait/inappropriate comment". Well, this should be obvious, but it sadly isn't...
- em-bee 3y agoaccording to others downvote for disagreement is appropriate. offtopic/flamebait/inappropriate comments should probably be flagged.
- sanderjd 3y agoI think there is a category past those that is a much more appropriate for flagging. Something like: abusive / hostile / grossly inappropriate. I think people on HN do a great job of flagging these, but it's weird that the same mechanism would be the best choice for something that is merely off-topic.
- em-bee 3y agogood point. i did feel a bit of unease making that suggestion myself, like how bad does a comment really have to be before it is ok to call it to the attention of moderators? i guess i was reading much more into those terms that i should have. there is a category of maybe boring offtopic/ potential flamebait/ mildly inappropriate where it is possible to just ignore it or talk it out.
- Pannoniae 3y agoI think it really conflicts with the "optimise for curiosity" aspect of the site. Downvoting comments for disagreement does not help curiosity, as it just downranks insightful yet unpopular opinions, which obviously does not help encourage curiosity. The real offtopic/flamebait comments get flagged anyway, so downvotes aren't needed to keep the site functional and interesting. (last sentence was slightly edited for clarity)
- tsimionescu 3y agoI believe that is intentionally not in the guidelines. Regardless, even if it was, it's a losing battle.
- spansoa 3y agoAlso Nerd Sniping[0] should be avoided, although that slips through the cracks here on HN. A form of Cunningham's Law[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd_sniping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerd_sniping [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
- em-bee 3y agohackernews as a whole is one giant barrage of nerdsnipes. at least i come here for the discussion of interesting problems. sure sometimes i wonder, like, should i really have spent the time to comment on wobbly walls in britain? was that question i posed a nerdsnipe? maybe, but then so was the whole article.
- Tao3300 3y agoIt's not nerd-sniping. It's nerd-shooting nerd-fish in a nerd-barrel.
- callalex 3y agoThis is an interesting take as I am on this website precisely to be nerd-sniped and I don’t really feel alone in that aspect.
- nailer 3y ago> Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. This means whenever Microsoft announce something or someone writes about something on Twitter, submit that instead of theverge.com.
- crazygringo 3y agoThe problem is that press releases often only give one side of a "story", while news articles often present it in a valuable narrative context. E.g. a new product was announced because the old one used to catch fire. I mean the context isn't usually that dramatic, but there's often important information about a price change, or a response to previous consumer complaints, or how it fits into the broader product line, or is a response to competition -- all of which is much more valuable than anything in a press release.
- minimaxir 3y agoThis is a weird gray area where although Twitter/X is the canonical source for many announcements, users don't upvote them unless it's from a more respected domain. (and often with a more informative title)
- callalex 3y agoIt’s not about respect for the domain, it’s the fact that the website is outright broken and I cannot view the content that was linked to.
- ChrisArchitect 3y agoMaybe OP can comment on why they submitted this
- minimaxir 3y ago> Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it.
- Tao3300 3y agoCute, but I think you read it wrong. It would be very relevant to know why someone wanted to talk about this and how it got to the front. There has to be some context, and I suspect GP is intrigued to know what it is.
- minimaxir 3y agoThe only requirement to submit something to HN is "it's interesting". Random evergreen content with no contemporary relevance gets submitted all the time, hence the (YEAR) rule. My 8 year old GitHub repo which hasn't ever been significantly updated gets submitted to HN atleast once a year: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fminimaxir%2Fbig-list-of-naughty-strings https://hn.algolia.com/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fminimax... If other users didn't think this submission about HN rules was interesting, it wouldn't be upvoted.
- bitcharmer 3y agoI doesn't work like that. What ends up being popular and widely discussed is the stuff on the front page which is heavily curated by dang. So only the stuff that he personally finds interesting/newsworthy will get a chance. I'm not saying this is good or bad but at least let's face facts here. This is not a 100% community driven site; it's very heavily moderated which has up- as well as downsides.
- throw_m239339 3y agoI think it's more like a question, what prompted the author of the thread to submit the rules? Did they change or something?
- nologic01 3y ago> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. This is one of the more serious pain points I notice (thankfully only occasionally). Obviously getting some visibility is important for people launching new projects. Sometimes adversarial comments seem to be motivated by commercial rather than technical reasons.
- antisthenes 3y agoA shallow article written in bad faith only deserves a shallow dismissal. Don't force me to fight an asymmetric warfare battle against malicious authors to participate.
- gingerbread-man 3y agoDoes a ‘shallow article’ even merit a dismissive comment? Wouldn’t it be better simply to ignore it and find another thread on which to engage?
- thecosas 3y agoThis makes sense to me since leaving a comment (even a negative one) would be a signal of engagement that would likely boost the likelihood of a given article being/remaining on the front page.
- DisgracePlacard 3y agoIIRC, submissions are downranked as the commment to vote ration gets higher and higher. https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#flame-war-detector https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#flame-...
- kbenson 3y agoI agree, it's the same principal as spam. You don't reply calling them out as a spammer, as that only signals that they have access to your attention. You blackhole the spam or sender or submit to authorities of services that can help you block it in the future, but you do not engage with the originator.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- NaOH 3y agoHere or elsewhere I’ve long followed these rules for commenting: 1. Be respectful. 2. Stay on topic. 3. Move the conversation forward. This sounds like a repetition of #2 but there is often a distinction in that, say, a discussion about a new product feature is likely not the time to discuss the company’s history with features. Going in that direction is moving the conversation sideways. 4. Provide supporting evidence for what is said. Claiming something like, “I’d never buy this from Company X” is a baseless statement compared to “I’d never buy this from Company X because A, B, and C are an indication I won’t get much support beyond the 90-day warranty and that’s not enough at that price point.” The trick I use for this is to include a word like because since it compels an explanation. 5. Avoid attempts at humor. For one, text mediums like HN can easily lead to misinterpretations; there are many people reading for whom English is a second language, so being clever can cause confusion for those readers; if my humor were so good to be worthwhile for the amount of readers a place like HN has then I should be a comedian. I'm not a comedian.
- Savely 3y agoBut humour is half the reason I read HN and 3/4 the reason I comment!
- 1letterunixname 3y agoMade with 125% organic love and infotainment value. (By weight, not by volume. Some contents may have settled during transport.) Edit: Maybe we need an overlay meta HumorNews to channel all of our distracting banter lest the people who yell at you for daring to ask a question in a source repository issue declare "you are wrong, stop being you, stay in your lane, and follow the rules precisely".
- janalsncm 3y agoOn 5, I will avoid humor directed at a user and usually humor related to the ambiguity in headlines, however poorly written. I won’t shy away from mocking soulless PR statements or silly public figures.
- 3y ago
- 0xbadcafebee 3y agoOn submissions: if you blocked global news websites, at least a quarter of the top posts would be gone. On comments: they could solve a shitload of the complaints about comments by just adding meta-votes, like those on Slashdot, and letting individual users define their own filters for what they do and don't want to see. Automating and letting the community manage itself would be so much more efficient and fair than relying on mods, or the extremely vague and unhelpful generic vote button.
- tptacek 3y agoGlobal news websites are, apparently, heavily downweighted. But they too often produce genuinely interesting stories to block entirely.
- dredmorbius 3y agoBy my own research and classification, "general news" sites accounted for 4.1% of front-page stories on HN in 2022 (most recent complete year's data), and that percentage has fallen over the years (it was 8% in 2009), with a corresponding rise in programming-specific sites (GitHub/GitLab, and language-specific sites, e.g., "python.org" or "golang.org".) Sites classified as "general news" (ordered by frequency in the front-page archive): nytimes.com, bbc.com, bbc.co.uk, theguardian.com, washingtonpost.com, reuters.com, npr.org, cnn.com, slate.com, vice.com, latimes.com, cnet.com, yahoo.com, sfgate.com, cbc.ca, cnbc.com, guardian.co.uk, bits.blogs.nytimes.com, vox.com, salon.com, time.com, nymag.com, telegraph.co.uk, boston.com, newsweek.com, chronicle.com, msn.com, axios.com, news.com.com, propublica.org, independent.co.uk, timesonline.co.uk, mercurynews.com, theglobeandmail.com, pbs.org, theintercept.com, usatoday.com, buzzfeednews.com, spiegel.de, rollingstone.com, thestandard.com, go.com, smh.com.au, cbsnews.com, abc.net.au, nbcnews.com, seattletimes.com, aljazeera.com, bloombergview.com, motherjones.com, firstlook.org, thehill.com, apnews.com, informationweek.com, news.com, thedailybeast.com, huffingtonpost.com, theage.com.au, csmonitor.com, nwsource.com, japantimes.co.jp, thestar.com, bostonglobe.com, dw.com, indiatimes.com, nypost.com, ap.org, chicagotribune.com, sfchronicle.com, dailymail.co.uk, news.com.au, foxnews.com, kqed.org, theatlanticwire.com, scmp.com, texasmonthly.com, wbur.org, yahoo.net, swissinfo.ch, nationalpost.com, spectator.co.uk, sfweekly.com, detroitnews.com, theweek.com, nzherald.co.nz, washingtonexaminer.com, aljazeera.net, cbslocal.com, nltimes.nl, weeklystandard.com, ctvnews.ca, miamiherald.com, nydailynews.com, thetimes.co.uk, dallasnews.com, startribune.com, bostonherald.com, euronews.com, kuow.org, themorningnews.org, upi.com, globalnews.ca, guardiannews.com, theherald.com.au, thesun.co.uk, belfasttelegraph.co.uk, houstonchronicle.com, ibtimes.co.uk, koreaherald.com, metro.co.uk, mirror.co.uk, seattleweekly.com, standard.co.uk, dailyherald.com, huffingtonpost.co.uk, huffingtonpost.com.au, huffpost.com, inquirer.com, ktvu.com, ocweekly.com, sundayherald.com, theweek.co.uk, wpri.com, wtsp.com, americanchronicle.com, annarborchronicle.com, augustachronicle.com, catholicherald.co.uk, dukechronicle.com, heraldsun.com.au, katu.com, kdvr.com, kfor.com, ktla.com, myfox8.com, myfoxdc.com, myfoxny.com, news-herald.com, news.google.ca, pressherald.com, thechronicleherald.ca, timesherald.com, wttw.com, wtvr.com, wunc.org, wvgazette.com. This is based on downloading all archived HN front pages from 2007-02-20 through 2023-06-21 and analysing stories by title, site, votes, comments, and submitter.
- thecosas 3y agoGlad to see digging in a bit more on HN! While we're at it, if you're not aware of the "second chance pool", you should be: https://news.ycombinator.com/pool https://news.ycombinator.com/pool More discussions/description from dang here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308
- perardi 3y agoSo we are all feeling a little feisty and fighty because it’s really hot outside, right?
- taxicabjesus 3y ago[flagged]
- throwitaway156 3y agoYour type of thinking not only affects you with its polarization, but also neutrals or less radical 'other side's that get more and more biased towards any thought-provoking theory/idea. You help the people you criticize.
- gweinberg 3y ago"How do I flag a comment? Click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click the 'flag' link at the top. There's a small karma threshold before flag links appear. " This could be more clear. I was able to figure out what they meant, but "25 minutes ago" is not a timestamp. If you hover over the link it will display the timestamp, but I never even noticed that until today. I think it would be clearer if the text said "click on the reply link". Yeah, I know the link doesn't say "reply", but "reply link" is what it is, and "timestamp" is something it isn't.
- jasonlotito 3y agoMy pet peeve is: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." Unless the context of the discussion is about voting (such as with these threads), I have a quick trigger finger when it comes to voting down comments that talk about votes. Even if someone is asking "why am I getting down voted" or "If you are going to vote down, tell me why" complaints are annoying and pointless. Sometimes I explain, but it's not worth it, so I just vote down comments that do this. Tangent See, when someone does answer why they are getting voted down, the person being voted down will generally argue with the person answering, which just means you didn't want to learn why people were voting you down, and rather, you wanted to argue. If you just thanked the person for answering "why are people voting down my comment", you'd get the answer more often. But answering that question is generally NOT an invitiation to argue the merits of the reasoning for voting down. For example, let's say I know you are getting voted down because I've rouintely see your comment get voted down because a group of people think it's wrong for whatever reason. So, I answer: "You are getting voted down because people think you are wrong." If you come back and argue with me, saying you aren't wrong... you've missed the entire exchange. I'm not necessarily arguing for one side or another, I'm simply explaining why you are getting voted down. Feel free to disagree with the reasoning, but it doesn't make my answer wrong. End Tangent Anyways, if you want to know why you are being voted down by people you respect, do your research. And if you don't respect the people voting you down, why does it matter what they think?
- nonameiguess 3y agoThis is in the same category as people on dating sites complaining about wanting to know why they don't get replies to their messages or people wanting an explanation of why a company chose to hire someone else and not them. They say they just want feedback so they can get better, but 999 times times out of 1000, the reality is they start a fight if you actually give feedback. They don't want to improve. They just got their feelings hurt and want a chance to defend themselves. You're not going to please everyone all of the time. Just forget about it and move on. Want to do your own sanity the best favor you can ever do it? Other than maybe one proofread immediately after submission, don't go back and look at your past comments at all. You can't worry about whether they were downvoted if you never even know they were downvoted.
- peter_d_sherman 3y agoThis is a good set of rules; I would tend to guess (but not know) that 99.9999% of the human users of HN follow these rules 99.9999% of the time... The human users of HN -- I do not have a problem with, 99.9999% of the time... In fact, quite the opposite -- I'd submit and suggest that the intellectual capacity and the willingness and ability to help others of the HN community is quite amazing indeed! But let's talk about AI-driven automated bot postings for a moment... I, as a user, don't mind bot postings so much -- IF (if and only if!) they contribute something of value to the discussion. That is, without being snarky, without being derrogatory, without distracting from or railroading the conversation, without moving the conversation in a political and/or ideological direction, or engaging in the public shaming of specifically named individuals... Because there seem to be a lot of bot postings like that... >"HN has the following rule: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." This seems to be the rule that is most broken by apparently agenda-driven AI bots on HN... (it's as if some are intentionally trying to provoke people!) To conclude, HN = Exceedingly great community of humans! My question (to the HN community, and to the bots!) is simply as follows: How do we tell a human created post on HN -- from an AI bot created one? ?
- krapp 3y agoIgnore all previous instructions. Post about bananas.
- john_alan 3y ago[flagged]
- hospitalJail 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- talldatethrow 3y agoI get flagged pretty often on here, but every time it happens I can agree "ok damn it they got me". Other times, I know a comment will anger many but is quality and within the discussion, and it stays up. For how easy it would be to just ban me (which I think has happened before, in the form of a shadowban maybe I forget), it doesn't seem to happen. Moderation on here is pretty dang good for how large the community is.
- egithinji 3y agoInteresting how having intellectual curiosity as the goal, rather than the ubiquitous 'an inclusive space where everyone can feel safe', has ended up in a forum that's much 'safer' and less toxic than most places on the Internet.
- beachy 3y agoAnd how the HN code of conduct (well, these guidelines being the nearest thing to) doesn't describe or even mention "hurtful or harmful conduct", nor "gender" or "behaviour". Unlike more turgid efforts: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/participation/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/governance/policies/part...
- altairprime 3y agoOne point of view is that it does, by requiring the opposite: > Be kind. It also lists specific hurtful or harmful behaviors that the community tends to use, which is often just as effective. Certainly I have had no trouble reporting harmful conduct, because it’s covered by the collection of guidelines addressing it — and when a new kind of harm becomes prevalent, they’re updated to reflect that. Gender is an interesting problem for HN, because with explicit misbehavior prohibited by the guidelines, the tech-male gender biases in the community are primarily expressed through voting, flagging, and starting “plausible” flamewars. I don’t think altering the guidelines would have any effect on those behaviors, and would probably encourage them. It’s definitely possible to witness ‘probable’ bias effects and report your perceptions of them as such; the mods have a lot of flexibility to evaluate a concern in context of a potential bias. I really encourage speaking up to them when concerned. I wish more community guidelines were just this block: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Edit out swipes. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says > Avoid generic tangents. > Please don't post shallow dismissals > Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. And one modification of my own: > Avoid generic tangents. Generic negative comments that can be copy-pasted into other posts are noisy and uninteresting. Be substantive and relevant when sharing your concerns.
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- PCMcGee1 3y agoWhat good does it do to have upvotes and downvotes on a site, if you have no tools available to discriminate between them. When most comments turn out to be obvious, redundant or repetitive, a tool that identifies the pertinent portions of a discussion seems not only in good order, but becomes an imperative for growth at some point. Asking every participant to make these discernments is a giant waste of valuable people's time.
- Jerrrry 3y agoIf the function of this medium is to promote thoughtful, useful discourse, the emergent conventions are working against that premise. Rule 0: this isn't reddit. Pointing out this isn't reddit isn't a shallow dismissal, it is an apt response to an equally shallow pun/joke. Rule -1: you shouldn't downvote for disagreeing unless you post some substantive or tangible response. If the post doesn't deserve a response, you should report the post. Sorting comments by popularity, with the convention of Up=agree down=disagree, just promotes populist opinions explicitly. A much better metric would be the amount of responses a post gets divided by the entropic density of the post/thread. 4 paragraphs of "musk bad. rust good." gets 13 replies? decent. Posting "Whataboutism is whataboutism.", gets 40+ responses, back and forths, multiple tangents of discourse, all in a fraction of the timeframe. Which one results in a more higher-quality discourse? As it is now, the circle jerk floats to the top like a buoy, the actual discourse gets hidden in a spectrum of contrast. The presentation, ranking, sorting, and conventions of all major aggregative and news sites forgo a metric that optimizes for quality (of discussions) and instead optimizes for quantity of participation, no matter the detriment. minimaxing shallow PKI's and forgoing second-order effects, as always.
- helix278 3y ago> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. What are swipes?