4 ms·

this is mental gymnastics. i really think HN would be better with a reputation system so that posts like these will be checked for accuracy after the fact. acco

this is mental gymnastics. i really think HN would be better with a reputation system so that posts like these will be checked for accuracy after the fact. accounts that accumulate tons of wrong predictions can be labeled and easily ignored. it would help with this problem where a huge wave of the same wrong opinion floods the comments and everyone else gets greyed out. why do we let wave after wave after wave happen without any accountability? like when half of HN confidently predicted twitter would crash… im not saying it was a bad guess but lets make it mean something to be wrong!

pengaru 3y ago
> i really think HN would be better with a reputation system so that posts like these will be checked for accuracy after the fact. accounts that accumulate tons of wrong predictions can be labeled and easily ignored. it would help with this problem where a huge wave of the same wrong opinion floods the comments and everyone else gets greyed out. why do we let wave after wave after wave happen without any accountability? I don't understand what your point is - the accuracy in question is in a linked article submission, not an HN comment, no? Which account would be getting labeled as such? The link submitter? I suspect that's too diversified to really be effective.
- reverse_no 3y ago
  the article is an example of an opinion that often shows up in comments. it would make sense to have a rank based on the accuracy of the sentiments of your posted links as well as comments. all of this would be difficult to implement but thats besides the point. for example, if a guy constantly posted articles that explain why EVs can never be viable, and he did that 2010 to 2020 then it would be nice to have some convenient way of knowing that this persons links are usually not very useful. and if a person posted a bunch of links about a specific therapy years before it became a breakthrough treatment then i would want his links pushed to the top…
  - pengaru 3y ago
    Well, in lieu of a forum implementation automating that, you can already scrutinize a submitter's submission history via their profile. In this particular case, it's their first and only submission, so what you're proposing would do absolutely nothing.
    - reverse_no 3y ago
      well, no. a reputation system could prevent poor predictors from hijacking threads, attenuate their moderation power, overall decrease the influence they have. and obviously that would take time to have an effect. im not sure how you could not understand that. i dont understand why you bring up reading peoples comment history. thats totally unrelated
      - pengaru 3y ago
        > i dont understand why you bring up reading peoples comment history. thats totally unrelated Comment history != submission history. Maybe I just plain don't understand what you're on about at all.
        reverse_no 3y ago
        sentiments of comments and posts contributing to a rank… wow
itsoktocry 3y ago
Here's an idea: decide if you believe the article all on your own, through independent research or your gut.
- reverse_no 3y ago
  i already do that. my gut cant stop thousands of idiots from greying good coments

pengaru 3y ago

> i really think HN would be better with a reputation system so that posts like these will be checked for accuracy after the fact. accounts that accumulate tons of wrong predictions can be labeled and easily ignored. it would help with this problem where a huge wave of the same wrong opinion floods the comments and everyone else gets greyed out. why do we let wave after wave after wave happen without any accountability? I don't understand what your point is - the accuracy in question is in a linked article submission, not an HN comment, no? Which account would be getting labeled as such? The link submitter? I suspect that's too diversified to really be effective.

reverse_no 3y ago
the article is an example of an opinion that often shows up in comments. it would make sense to have a rank based on the accuracy of the sentiments of your posted links as well as comments. all of this would be difficult to implement but thats besides the point. for example, if a guy constantly posted articles that explain why EVs can never be viable, and he did that 2010 to 2020 then it would be nice to have some convenient way of knowing that this persons links are usually not very useful. and if a person posted a bunch of links about a specific therapy years before it became a breakthrough treatment then i would want his links pushed to the top…
- pengaru 3y ago
  Well, in lieu of a forum implementation automating that, you can already scrutinize a submitter's submission history via their profile. In this particular case, it's their first and only submission, so what you're proposing would do absolutely nothing.
  - reverse_no 3y ago
    well, no. a reputation system could prevent poor predictors from hijacking threads, attenuate their moderation power, overall decrease the influence they have. and obviously that would take time to have an effect. im not sure how you could not understand that. i dont understand why you bring up reading peoples comment history. thats totally unrelated
    - pengaru 3y ago
      > i dont understand why you bring up reading peoples comment history. thats totally unrelated Comment history != submission history. Maybe I just plain don't understand what you're on about at all.
      - reverse_no 3y ago
        sentiments of comments and posts contributing to a rank… wow

itsoktocry 3y ago

Here's an idea: decide if you believe the article all on your own, through independent research or your gut.

reverse_no 3y ago
i already do that. my gut cant stop thousands of idiots from greying good coments