4 ms·

> So if you are saying that this is a thing that is already supported but not used, can you link to such a post that you have made? As it is, I'm not sure that

by lapcat 1y ago

> So if you are saying that this is a thing that is already supported but not used, can you link to such a post that you have made? As it is, I'm not sure that HN even lets you make posts like that. I think that HN simply makes your text the first comment. For example, here I linked to a social media post, and it made sense to quote the entire post to save a click: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41556661 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41556661 > the guidelines argue directly against the point you're making, basically saying that commentary (which would include a blurb or summary) should go in a comment, not in the submission itself. Where do the guidelines say this? I'm not seeing it. > AI/LLM and other kinds of generated commentary is against HN guidelines to my reading also, so you would have to do that yourself. Definitely. I'm not calling for AI summaries. I don't want AI summaries. > It seems likely that what you're asking for would result in more rehashing and less original content Why? > I think it would be gamed by bad actors What do you mean by a bad actor? > allow charlatans and sophists to invisibly rewrite history and the present I honestly have no idea what this means in the context under discussion, especially the "invisibly" part but also the rest of your claim. The submitter writes a brief summary of the submitted article. Everyone knows it's the submitter's summary. The worst that can happen is that the submitter writes a bad summary, you click the link, and the article turns out to be not what you expected. This already happens with article titles. Then you can come back and complain about the summary in the comments to the submission. I'm not seeing what the big deal is here.

aspenmayer 1y ago
Here’s an example of the kind of post I mean, with a URL and also text: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44935658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44935658 Your other points are answered in the guidelines, news guidelines, and/or comments by mods, which are also considered part of the guidelines.
- lapcat 1y ago
  > Your other points are answered in the guidelines, news guidelines, and/or comments by mods, which are also considered part of the guidelines. If you'd kindly point exactly where, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I still have no idea what you're talking about. I have of course read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    I have emailed the mods to help answer your questions, because I don’t speak for them or HN.
    - lapcat 1y ago
      > I don’t speak for them or HN. But you do speak for yourself, and indeed the mods don't speak for you, which I think leaves your own opinions unexplained and confusing: > It seems likely that what you're asking for would result in more rehashing and less original content > I think it would be gamed by bad actors > willing to hear more about why you think it would help rather than allow charlatans and sophists to invisibly rewrite history and the present to bake in their own ideology and beliefs.
      - aspenmayer 1y ago
        Summaries are subjective, so the subjectivity allows for glosses and elisions of the objective nature of the original content.
        lapcat 1y ago
        > Summaries are subjective Yes, so what? The comments on a submission are subjective too. I still don't know who you think the "bad actors", "charlatans", and "sophists" are, how they can "invisibly rewrite history", or what you think "gamed" means, aside from getting people to click the submitted link. The entire point of my proposal is simply that a summary of the article, longer than the article title but still relatively brief, can frequently be a better guide than the article title alone as to whether the article is worth reading. That's it. So the histrionics about rewriting history and such just seem bizarre and inexplicable to me. > the objective nature of the original content Objective in what way? The submitted article may itself be an opinion piece, and often is. Anyway, nobody would be stopping you from reading the article. Quite the opposite: the point of the summary is to explain why you should read the article yourself! Here's an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44945966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44945966 The article title is "What could have been". The article title is so extremely vague as to be useless. I have no clue what it's supposed to be about.

by lapcat 1y ago

aspenmayer 1y ago

Here’s an example of the kind of post I mean, with a URL and also text: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44935658 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44935658 Your other points are answered in the guidelines, news guidelines, and/or comments by mods, which are also considered part of the guidelines.

lapcat 1y ago
> Your other points are answered in the guidelines, news guidelines, and/or comments by mods, which are also considered part of the guidelines. If you'd kindly point exactly where, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I still have no idea what you're talking about. I have of course read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  I have emailed the mods to help answer your questions, because I don’t speak for them or HN.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    > I don’t speak for them or HN. But you do speak for yourself, and indeed the mods don't speak for you, which I think leaves your own opinions unexplained and confusing: > It seems likely that what you're asking for would result in more rehashing and less original content > I think it would be gamed by bad actors > willing to hear more about why you think it would help rather than allow charlatans and sophists to invisibly rewrite history and the present to bake in their own ideology and beliefs.
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      Summaries are subjective, so the subjectivity allows for glosses and elisions of the objective nature of the original content.
      - lapcat 1y ago
        > Summaries are subjective Yes, so what? The comments on a submission are subjective too. I still don't know who you think the "bad actors", "charlatans", and "sophists" are, how they can "invisibly rewrite history", or what you think "gamed" means, aside from getting people to click the submitted link. The entire point of my proposal is simply that a summary of the article, longer than the article title but still relatively brief, can frequently be a better guide than the article title alone as to whether the article is worth reading. That's it. So the histrionics about rewriting history and such just seem bizarre and inexplicable to me. > the objective nature of the original content Objective in what way? The submitted article may itself be an opinion piece, and often is. Anyway, nobody would be stopping you from reading the article. Quite the opposite: the point of the summary is to explain why you should read the article yourself! Here's an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44945966 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44945966 The article title is "What could have been". The article title is so extremely vague as to be useless. I have no clue what it's supposed to be about.