4 ms·

Yeah, I get that, but my opinion is different from the policy is what I'm saying.

by 13of40 3y ago

Jtsummers 3y ago
That's your opinion, that's fine. But the existing FAQ entry is consistent with the "don't editorialize titles" policy, too. No one gets a privileged position not even the submitter. The closest a submitter can get to a privileged position in the comments is by submitting their own content, like a blog discussing this issue and citing the Vice article and then their "comment" becomes their own article.
- panarky 3y ago
  >>>>>> Why does the comment field exist if not to write a comment? Maybe the design of the site should reflect the policy, instead of ambiguity that results in polluting the entire first page with meta-commentary about HN policy instead of the actual post.
  - Jtsummers 3y ago
    >>>>>>> Why does the comment field exist if not to write a comment? There is no comment field in submissions. Click submit and see what the three fields are, none of them are "comment". The site's design and behavior reflects the policy.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      Then what are we even talking about? Is the field explicitly labeled some other way that means "this is not for your commentary"? I actually didn't assume it necessarily had a label that said literally "Comment:". I posted something just the other day myself and don't remember how the field was lebeled, but I sure wrote a comment in it, because it was just the obvious thing to do. (and the comment appeared in the form of a regular comment as though I had just added a comment like anyone else, not with the url.) So I don't know how people actually even write those posts with text and a url, since when I tried, it didn't do that, but, I also cannot begin to guess why anyone has a problem with it. Why in the world is it wrong to say why you posted something, what aspect of it you found noteworthy, as you post it?

4 ms·

Yeah, I get that, but my opinion is different from the policy is what I'm saying.

by 13of40 3y ago

Yeah, I get that, but my opinion is different from the policy is what I'm saying.

Jtsummers 3y ago
That's your opinion, that's fine. But the existing FAQ entry is consistent with the "don't editorialize titles" policy, too. No one gets a privileged position not even the submitter. The closest a submitter can get to a privileged position in the comments is by submitting their own content, like a blog discussing this issue and citing the Vice article and then their "comment" becomes their own article.
- panarky 3y ago
  >>>>>> Why does the comment field exist if not to write a comment? Maybe the design of the site should reflect the policy, instead of ambiguity that results in polluting the entire first page with meta-commentary about HN policy instead of the actual post.
  - Jtsummers 3y ago
    >>>>>>> Why does the comment field exist if not to write a comment? There is no comment field in submissions. Click submit and see what the three fields are, none of them are "comment". The site's design and behavior reflects the policy.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      Then what are we even talking about? Is the field explicitly labeled some other way that means "this is not for your commentary"? I actually didn't assume it necessarily had a label that said literally "Comment:". I posted something just the other day myself and don't remember how the field was lebeled, but I sure wrote a comment in it, because it was just the obvious thing to do. (and the comment appeared in the form of a regular comment as though I had just added a comment like anyone else, not with the url.) So I don't know how people actually even write those posts with text and a url, since when I tried, it didn't do that, but, I also cannot begin to guess why anyone has a problem with it. Why in the world is it wrong to say why you posted something, what aspect of it you found noteworthy, as you post it?