3 ms·

When this happens, how do you determine who gets the karma? Is it right and just and logical for OP to get karma for submitting a URL that HN readers didn't vis

When this happens, how do you determine who gets the karma? Is it right and just and logical for OP to get karma for submitting a URL that HN readers didn't visit after being updated by mods, or for OP to get karma previously for a URL that was deemed lacking with regards to the guidelines? It seems like they should get one or the other, but not both. Just some food for thought. The reason I mention it, is that a person who has been commented upon by me previously for using scripts submitted this before OP, and if precedent holds, they should get the karma, not OP. But they have been commented upon by mods for having used scripts, but somehow haven't been banned for doing so, because dang has supposedly interacted with them/spoken with them, as if that could justify botting. But I digress. To wit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44449650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44449650

sebastianmestre 1y ago
They're fake internet points, it's no big deal
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  Then why don't you email mods to delete your account? Your post adds nothing to the discussion I made with my reply, so what are you even doing here?
  - thunderbong 1y ago
    Because it's possible they didn't know about it? Because it's possible they might post something of more value another time? Let's assume good faith.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      Who didn't know about what now? This is HN inside baseball. If you or they don't know, they should ask somebody or lurk more, to be blunt. To phrase this in a better way, they should post better if they want a better response.
tomhow 1y ago
It's an imperfect system and some human judgment about fairness applies. In this case, the original URL submitted had the YouTube video prominently embedded, along with some commentary. It's no big deal to do that, as sometimes the commentary adds something. In this case nobody seems to think it does so I updated the URL to the primary source, but there's no need to penalize the submitter. If the primary/best source for a topic has been submitted by multiple people, all being equal we'll promote the first-submitted one to the front page and mark later ones as dupes. But things aren't always equal, and if the first submission was from a user who submits a lot and gets many big front page hits, we don't feel the need to just hand them more karma and will happily give the points to a less karma-rich user who submitted it later, especially if theirs is already on the front page.
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > But things aren't always equal, and if the first submission was from a user who submits a lot and gets many big front page hits, we don't feel the need to just hand them more karma and will happily give the points to a less karma-rich user who submitted it later, especially if theirs is already on the front page. I know dang has said that generated comments and bots are against HN guidelines previously, but should I read what you're not saying between the lines, and should I interpret it as consistent with HN policy to use scripts or bots to post to HN? Because that seems to be happening in this case, and keeps coming up, because it keeps happening. After a certain point, inaction is a choice and a policy by proxy. inb4 someone asks what it is and what it is that is happening; if you don't already know, ask somebody else, and if you're not a mod on HN, I'll likely consider your response a concern troll if it isn't on topic for this thread or attempts to derail it, which I fully expect to happen, but I am constantly willing to be surprised, and often am on this site. As the previous construction was rather strained, I'll say it plainly: Is it okay, as in, consistent with and affirming the HN guidelines, to use scripts/bots to post to HN, or not? My reading tells me no.
  - tomhow 1y ago
    We ban bots that submit a lot of spam or other content that’s a bad fit for HN. We ban LLM-comment bots because we want the discussions to be between humans sharing original human ideas. If someone has written a script that finds and submits articles that are good for HN, I don’t see why we should ban them. We can use human judgment to decide which of their posts should be rewarded or downranked; we’re doing manual curation all the time anyway.

sebastianmestre 1y ago

They're fake internet points, it's no big deal

aspenmayer 1y ago
Then why don't you email mods to delete your account? Your post adds nothing to the discussion I made with my reply, so what are you even doing here?
- thunderbong 1y ago
  Because it's possible they didn't know about it? Because it's possible they might post something of more value another time? Let's assume good faith.
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    Who didn't know about what now? This is HN inside baseball. If you or they don't know, they should ask somebody or lurk more, to be blunt. To phrase this in a better way, they should post better if they want a better response.

tomhow 1y ago

It's an imperfect system and some human judgment about fairness applies. In this case, the original URL submitted had the YouTube video prominently embedded, along with some commentary. It's no big deal to do that, as sometimes the commentary adds something. In this case nobody seems to think it does so I updated the URL to the primary source, but there's no need to penalize the submitter. If the primary/best source for a topic has been submitted by multiple people, all being equal we'll promote the first-submitted one to the front page and mark later ones as dupes. But things aren't always equal, and if the first submission was from a user who submits a lot and gets many big front page hits, we don't feel the need to just hand them more karma and will happily give the points to a less karma-rich user who submitted it later, especially if theirs is already on the front page.

aspenmayer 1y ago
> But things aren't always equal, and if the first submission was from a user who submits a lot and gets many big front page hits, we don't feel the need to just hand them more karma and will happily give the points to a less karma-rich user who submitted it later, especially if theirs is already on the front page. I know dang has said that generated comments and bots are against HN guidelines previously, but should I read what you're not saying between the lines, and should I interpret it as consistent with HN policy to use scripts or bots to post to HN? Because that seems to be happening in this case, and keeps coming up, because it keeps happening. After a certain point, inaction is a choice and a policy by proxy. inb4 someone asks what it is and what it is that is happening; if you don't already know, ask somebody else, and if you're not a mod on HN, I'll likely consider your response a concern troll if it isn't on topic for this thread or attempts to derail it, which I fully expect to happen, but I am constantly willing to be surprised, and often am on this site. As the previous construction was rather strained, I'll say it plainly: Is it okay, as in, consistent with and affirming the HN guidelines, to use scripts/bots to post to HN, or not? My reading tells me no.
- tomhow 1y ago
  We ban bots that submit a lot of spam or other content that’s a bad fit for HN. We ban LLM-comment bots because we want the discussions to be between humans sharing original human ideas. If someone has written a script that finds and submits articles that are good for HN, I don’t see why we should ban them. We can use human judgment to decide which of their posts should be rewarded or downranked; we’re doing manual curation all the time anyway.