Y HN SearchHacker News Search

new|comments|top|jobs

loading thread…

4 ms·

Ask HN: Why can't we comment on [dead] posts?

6 points by aspenmayer 1y ago

Did this behavior change recently? I recall being able to reply to existing comments on [dead] posts recently, but now that capability seems to have been removed. These actions seem anti-user. If the post is already dead, no new comments can be made on the post, which is bad enough, but could be justified for moderation purposes. However, why can’t we reply to [live] comments, simply because the post they are attached to is [dead]? It’s bad enough that old [live] posts get locked, basically freezing them in carbonite, a state indistinguishable from death only in that it wasn’t triggered by user behavior. A related issue is that downvoted replies with upvoted children may be collapsed or [dead] even if the downthread discussion is of higher quality than other top level comments. Maybe make it so that user flags have to select a checkbox/radio button reason for the flag or fill in a text box? Would probably not help the issue in title, but slashdot’s vote reasons and meta-moderation system captured a lot of user interaction intent that few platforms have revisited. Emoji reactions would maybe be the closest thing I’ve seen lately. Thoughts, suggestions for more thoughtful interactions on HN?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
pvg 1y ago
Maybe send this question to hn@ycombinator.com with examples of the posts you can't comment on?
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  Here’s an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44065795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44065795 I often email, but this time I opted to have the conversation in public, so that both mods and users could participate and discuss on equal footing.
  - pvg 1y ago
    That's a flagged dead post? Those have been closed to new comments as far back as I can remember.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      I’m not talking about new top level comments on a [dead] post. Those have always been closed. I’m talking about new replies to live comments on a [dead] post. Those were possible until relatively recently. I don’t remember any notice of this change, or reasoning/justification for such change, which has now clearly occurred.
      - pvg 1y ago
        I haven't noticed this but maybe you can find out by emailing the mods.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        I’m sure that I could, and I could faithfully transcribe their reply, and you’d just have to take my word for it. Why would I want to insert myself as an intermediary between the moderators and the community that they moderate?
        pvg 1y ago
        It’s you who’s asking, not the community? Like, insertion already happened - most meta posts aren’t interesting to most people which is why the convention is to address them to the people who can answer them.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        I’m asking because I noticed the change and was curious if anyone else on HN had noticed. I’m sure that the mods would notice in such a case, so that confirmation or denial would only provide authoritativeness to the answer, and such a valid answer would yet bring us no closer to the truth we seek, which is the awareness and impact of such knowledge on the community. By posing the question as I have, we get the confirmation for free, but by posing it your way, we could bring more heat than light to the discussion through the indirection.
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
If you email hn@ycombinator.com with a thoughtful discussion that is below a dead comment, dang can detach it so the discussion can be better seen. (If you have showdead on, you can expand dead collapsed comments, and get to the discussion below, but most people don't and won't.) As far as dead posts... I don't remember whether we used to be able to comment on them or not.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  Detaching posts is also used as a moderation tactic to bury posts, which is also anti-user, and it also breaks context and parent-child relationships. It’s not really a workable solution to the problems it purports to solve, in my opinion. > As far as dead posts... I don't remember whether we used to be able to comment on them or not. We did, and I have done so often. If I had to guess, this change occurred in the last month or two.
  - brudgers 1y ago
    If it changed, maybe the reason is because it was deemed an attractive nuisance. Sometimes community is the high bit, not the user.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      If we’re the high bit, why are changes affecting the entire community shoved through on the down-low? A moderation log and changelog announcing changes to how the site works would improve transparency and increase trust and accountability in HN. This speculation is entirely avoidable, but somehow the opaque structure of moderation on HN seems intentional. Most mod actions on HN probably fall under anti-abuse measures, and perhaps only bad actors were bothering to reply to live comments on dead posts. But seeing how hard it is to even find dead posts if you weren’t already aware of them, I’m not sure this was a problem for users, as they probably weren’t seeing them in the first place, but it could easily be a problem for HN. I think your explanation is most likely because it assumes the least, but considering the way the guidelines have evolved, I’m willing to believe that this was being actively used by bad actors, and not simply a change that was easily justified once you saw fit to do so.
detaro 1y ago
fairly sure you never could comment on [dead] posts. [flagged] is a separate state from [flagged][dead] though, and then you can still comment.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  I'm referring specifically to replying to live comments on [dead] posts, which was possible until quite recently. So recently, that when I tried to do it yesterday, I noticed the change.
  - dang 1y ago
    It has never been possible to reply to [dead] posts, and nothing to do with the mechanics of posting has changed in a long time. Whatever you noticed as a change, it must have a different explanation.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      > It has never been possible to reply to [dead] posts, and nothing to do with the mechanics of posting has changed in a long time. I am referring to replying to live comments on [dead] posts, which I am positive was possible before, because I do it fairly often until yesterday or so when I tried and it didn’t work. As a journalist, this impacts my ability to interact with the public and corroborate information in the public good. As a HN user, it has a chilling effect on legitimate public discourse on this site.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      It appears that the confusion on my part is that [flagged][dead] is a different state to [dead], which is my mistake if I have misunderstood this distinction, and yet one could be forgiven for not knowing things that are never explained in the guidelines or FAQ. When trying to explain my situation and experience to elicidate this distinction from others, they somehow missed it, and I missed what they were saying. Context was unclear and I assumed I understood that they meant what I thought I was saying, so I didn’t see their words as being incompatible with the statements I was making. I’ll accept responsibility for that, because it was unclear to others why I disagreed with them. I’m not sure that I’ve ever been able to reply to a [dead] post that wasn’t [flagged][dead], but I will take your word for it that I can’t. I never paid attention to that distinction before, but now I can, now that I’m aware that there is one. Does that seem like the source of the misunderstanding of what I was trying to say on your end? I can imagine to you it’s obvious what is or isn’t possible, but given how [dead] posts don’t seem to be indexed on Algolia, researching my own experience and that of others using HN in a historical manner to validate my own understanding of HN is hard. Are [dead] posts and associated comments part of the API? How can I even research this if they’re not? If they are, is the API the only way to see them without manually incrementing post IDs? I’ve never used the API, but would be curious to try. Can’t say I was surprised to be wrong, though I do make every effort to be right and accept correction graciously, and so I must admit my fault here, in sum and part. I will also say that other HN users who aren’t mods have a weird interpretation of the guidelines as being proscriptive rather than descriptive. I don’t feel that’s what the intent or language of the guidelines actually supports, however. I have been wrong before, in this thread, other threads, other posts, and I reserve the right to be wrong again, though never intentionally and always consistent with the guidelines as best as I understand them. I am trying to post on HN in such a way as to encourage others to post their best. When I receive comments like I did in reply to this post, I grow as a person, and also understand a little more what people mean when they say “HN is mean”. When my earnest, well-meaning post is met with personal attacks from senior users of HN, I can take it; I’m not new here. I just don’t want to find myself contributing negatively, and I managed to do that anyway, despite my attempts to the contrary. It’s hard to make good posts, and I certainly don’t always make it easy for myself or others, though I am doing my best with the replies I have to work with.

pvg 1y ago

Right but there's no 'we' here. You made up the 'we'. The person interested in this is you. It's not even clear the thing you think is happening is happening. You can just ask and if something did happen and you think it's important, you could try telling everyone maybe? Pretty much the premise behind 'mail the mods', no?

aspenmayer 1y ago
> Right but there's no 'we' here. You made up the 'we'. The person interested in this is you. It's not even clear the thing you think is happening is happening. You can just ask and if something did happen and you think it's important, you could try telling everyone maybe? Pretty much the premise behind 'mail the mods', no? We're all interested in this by virtue of discussing it. It's clear the thing that happened did happen independently of my beliefs about it. Your comments verge on gaslighting mixed with solipsism and are definitely not steelmanning my points here. I think it's important, or I wouldn't have made my post. Considering your long history on the site, and obvious familiarity with the guidelines, I would consider your argumentative style in this thread to be in bad faith.
- pvg 1y ago
  We're all interested in this by virtue of discussing it. No, I don't think that's true at all. It's the whole premise of a crowdsourced/curated forum, that there is some 'we' that is not, in fact, interested in 'everything' - hence the curation, the votes, the rules, the moderation, the non-infinite-scrolling front page. It's clear the thing that happened did happen independently of my beliefs about it You should find out how clear that is by asking the people who can clarify it. That's all.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    >> We're all interested in this by virtue of discussing it. > No, I don't think that's true at all. It's the whole premise of crowdsourced/curated forum, that there is some 'we' that is not, in fact, interested in 'everything' - hence the curation, the votes, the rules, the moderation, the non-infinite-scrolling front page. Yes, I was speaking inclusively of those people who have affirmatively expressed interest, whether it be via upvoting or commenting. Disagreement about the post or other engagement counts as expressing interest for the purposes of this discussion. We, as in you (pvg) and I (aspenmayer), specifically are interested in this post by dint and by virtue of discussing it, because it hasn't been dismissed out of hand. >> It's clear the thing that happened did happen independently of my beliefs about it > You should find out how clear that is by asking the people who can clarify it. That's all. I am asking the people who can clarify it (HN moderators) on the site they moderate (Hacker News). HN mods are HN users also. If you're not interested in my comments, you aren't obligated to reply if you can't be constructive and curious. I can't speak to your intent, but the effect you are having on me is anything but that. In polite conversation like HN, your intent matters, but the effects of your communication matter, also. It feels to me like you're concern trolling, ostensibly on behalf of HN, but that's not really consistent with the guidelines' admonition to encourage posts that increase in curiosity as they progress. This is not meant as a personal jab at you, as I do think of you positively on this site, and yet, to not mention how I feel you're coming across would be unfair to you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(slang)#Concern_troll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(slang)#Concern_troll > [Concern trolls] profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means'. In the absence of any clear guideline on the protocol for asking HN users (including mods, who are users first) about their experience of using HN, I know of no better venue for my question. Like, just assume that I emailed them also, or instead, and that I'm sharing it after the fact, if it helps you to relate to my post in good faith on the merits any post which is on-topic and within guidelines, like mine, deserves.
    - pvg 1y ago
      In the absence of any clear guideline on the protocol 'Send meta questions to the mods' is all over the guidelines and countless mod comments over the years.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        >> In the absence of any clear guideline on the protocol > 'Send meta questions to the mods' is all over the guidelines and countless mod comments over the years. I am sending my meta question to the mods and users via the submit post text box. If I sent an email, it wouldn't work, because then only the mods would get my email. I don't understand if you're intentionally misunderstanding my aims and goals with my post, but I've made every effort to help you understand why I posted instead of emailed, as my goal was to have a conversation with the entire HN community, not just one subsection of it. There was simply no other way to structure my post so that it would satisfy you, I guess. I don't mean to be dismissive, I really don't know what you expect me to do with your replies in this thread. I can only assume you don't like people questioning things around here.
        pvg 1y ago
        I am sending my meta question to the mods and users via the submit post text box. The site rules and conventions ask you not to do that, very straightforwardly and have for years. It's a trivial thing and you've written walls of text calling me names, making weird assumptions about my motives, etc, etc. It simply isn't true that there is 'an absence of protocol'. Perhaps you were unaware of it. Now you are, and you're right, this is a great place to wrap up.
        aspenmayer 1y ago
        You saying so doesn't make it so. Your interpretation of the guidelines is as valid as mine, as neither of us are mods currently, right? Which is why I asked for the mods to weigh in publicly in the first place! What names did I call you? You're retreating to vagaries and allusions and baseless claims. I'm not unaware of what I'm doing, and I don't find your comment helpful. You could have emailed the mods yourself if you wanted, and instead you besmirch my honor and call me a liar, and have the gall to say I'm wrong to merely ask to speak in public. The emperor has no clothes.

krapp 1y ago
FWIW, dang has commented on why HN doesn't use a public moderation log: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20moderation%20log&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  A moderation log is an example of how transparency into mod actions could work. In many ways, we already have the moderation log in the form of comment replies from mods. If you used a text box wrong, mods on HN seem pretty good about replying to you if they made a mod action. Maybe not in every case, but it seems intentional and probably an effort to make their impact visible and accountable to users. However, we don’t have any logs of moderator interventions in the functioning of the site in other ways. I’ve heard Dang say that one of my posts was downranked because it was basically a bad look for the #1 post on HN to be a post about n, where the post about n happened to be my post, and was on-topic for HN. Edit for clarity: the interaction was over email or on HN but I don’t recall which; that is, not in literal earshot, and was direct communication to me, not indirect etc.
  - krapp 1y ago
    Like dark mode, it's probably never going to happen.
    - dang 1y ago
      https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20alligator&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
brudgers 1y ago
once you saw fit to do so I have no access to the code base. My supposition is based on some professional exposure to “broken window policy”, the nature of the comments in this thread, and what a rational actor might do if similar remarks were likely to under dead comments if that rational actor was motivated to create an environment fostering intellectually interesting comments. To put it another way, I assume in the long run Hobbes is usually accurate. The sovereign’s sole responsibility is to keep the peace, and a Platonic philosopher king is the best outcome we are likely to get…which is to say that peace is kept by means most conducive to making each social contract a win-win. But it is still a social contract. If a person doesn’t find its execution acceptable, a philosopher king allows them to leave with their health intact. Again, I did not change the codebase.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  I never said you did change the codebase. I think you misinterpreted me as referring to you personally, when I meant you exclusively, because it was eminently clear from context what each of us meant, but I'm happy to clarify that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clusivity I agree with you about the pragmatic nature of moderation under discussion, to your point.

aspenmayer 1y ago

Thanks for that distinction, as no one else mentioned it in as many words, and due to underspecified context, I think we were talking past each other. I can’t be sure that is the end of my query, but I will try to dig into the API to see if I can corroborate my past observations. I apologize for not noticing this earlier, and how my own description of the issue allowed for confusion, and for any offense I may have caused you.

aspenmayer 1y ago

If you feel that I have wasted your time or insulted your person or character, that was not my intention or desire, but I understand that my words may have been interpreted that way. I may be wrong on points of fact through any or no reason, but not intentionally. If you feel that I called you names because I used the word “concern troll,” that is just what the behavior is called in that context, and does not reflect my views on you as a person. I quite like you generally from what I have read of your output, even if I don’t agree with something. I don’t view disagreement about the guidelines with you as being a personal grievance, so I’m not sure why you feel attacked if I critique HN, but I’ll leave my words there. I respect you, though I don’t know you. I believe that reasonable people can disagree, and I aim to be reasonable here by admitting my mistake in understanding the difference between [flagged][dead] and [dead]. I won’t ask for an apology but I think from context it’s clear that we both feel we’re owed one. You got yours, and if you don’t need it or want it, that’s okay too. If you aren’t satisfied with it, I’m sure I’ll owe you a better one eventually, and I’ll give you that one for the same price as the last. Are you able to identify anything you might have done differently in this thread? I know I am. This might feel like snark, but I am really trying to approach this from a place of love for the community you have helped build, perhaps more than any other person. But when you treat me badly, it hurts, and I don’t know if you care or even perceive me at all. Am I just a “wall of text” to you? I’m a real person, you know, trying to have a genuine interaction with people who care to hear it, not comply with HN guidelines or else.