4 ms·

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44947788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44947788 provides some insight on this.

mhb 11mo ago
Thanks for that. I hadn't seen it. But, now that I have, I'm puzzled by the moderator reasoning given that essentially every Israel/Gaza post violates all the guidelines.
- tguvot 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - NomDePlum 11mo ago
    Few posts on this subject gain any traction.
- NomDePlum 11mo ago
  You are welcome. Is interpreting guidelines literally or narrowly worth it? The word itself suggests that might be a mistake. Engagement (or not) is the ultimate judge here I'd suggest. I regularly view the "new" category and see countless examples there that could be considered off topic. Quite often this is true for those that make it to the front page. Hulk Hogan's death being a recent prime example. I personally believe the Israel/Gaza subject is important enough and on topic enough, but can understand the opposite perspective too.
  - mhb 11mo ago
    There are already forums in which engagement is the key metric. The reason this place is valuable is because it has guidelines that prevent it from becoming that. I used to think that that was also the aspiration of the moderators - that they were happy to sacrifice "engagement" for encouraging the audience to which they wanted to appeal. This certainly seems to be their revealed preference when admonishing commenters not to be snarky or mean. Unfortunately, though they see these specks of sawdust clearly, they have no real explanation why the log of divisive, political posts are not dead at submission. Behold the triumph of tone over substance. Maybe my memory is faulty or maybe I was less interested in the off-topic posts, but I thought that, in the past, there used to less bending the knee to the mob and more appealing to the stated guidelines. It is not a community-enhancing action to publish guidelines and make exceptions because it's what a mob wants. That's not what moderating is. If the overriding guideline is engagement, then fine; say that and eliminate the other superfluous ones. It will save a lot of space on the Guidelines page and people coming here will understand that it is r/hn. So: 1. Disallowing posts like these is worth it in order to promote the goals often expressed by the moderators for this site and 2. It does not require a narrow interpretation of the guidelines to conclude that posts similar to these violate all the guidelines. Let's see what happens with this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681400
    - NomDePlum 11mo ago
      Search 'Trump' and you'll see plenty of submissions that should be removed according to your interpretation of the guidelines. Seeing something and objecting to its presence doesn't mean it has suddenly appeared, nothing has changed other than your sensitivity for whatever particular reason. It's how you are applying your perspective that is the difference I would suggest.
      - mhb 11mo ago
        Fine. All this stuff should be removed notwithstanding your enthusiasm for it. Whether or not I previously noticed it or objected to it is beside the point. Either the guidelines mean something or they don't. This isn't a subtle issue.
        tomhow 11mo ago
        Just replied to you here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45688082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45688082 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45688885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45688885. The part of the guidelines that says "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" is as important as any other.
        tguvot 11mo ago
        and how exactly this post is "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" ? what you have here is article with misleading title that is contradicted in second paragraph of the article. also, in general, you can broadly apply "they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" to any given article here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046, you have "new phenomenon" . why won't you unflag it?
        tomhow 11mo ago
        > and how exactly this post is "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" ? We haven't said it is. In fact, we haven't really looked at the article. This submission got effectively no attention or engagement on HN. It spent zero time on the front page, and most of the discussion is this meta subthread. So, there's no aberration from the guidelines in the case of this item. > here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046, you have "new phenomenon" . why won't you unflag it? We also haven't seen that one. It also spent no time on the front page and had little discussion. Nobody has contacted us asking us to unflag it and making a case for it containing "significant new information". > also, in general, you can broadly apply "they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" to any given article That's false and is the most important point to recognise about HN. Most of what is in the mainstream news is not "new". It's mostly the same story with different details (i.e., most day-to-day political drama, celebrity news, crime stories, etc). Or they're notable for being unusual (e.g., person who wins the lottery three times) but not any kind of interesting new phenomenon. Sometimes a mainstream news item really is about an interesting new phenomenon, and that's when it qualifies for HN.

mhb 11mo ago

Thanks for that. I hadn't seen it. But, now that I have, I'm puzzled by the moderator reasoning given that essentially every Israel/Gaza post violates all the guidelines.

tguvot 11mo ago
[flagged]
- NomDePlum 11mo ago
  Few posts on this subject gain any traction.
NomDePlum 11mo ago
You are welcome. Is interpreting guidelines literally or narrowly worth it? The word itself suggests that might be a mistake. Engagement (or not) is the ultimate judge here I'd suggest. I regularly view the "new" category and see countless examples there that could be considered off topic. Quite often this is true for those that make it to the front page. Hulk Hogan's death being a recent prime example. I personally believe the Israel/Gaza subject is important enough and on topic enough, but can understand the opposite perspective too.
- mhb 11mo ago
  There are already forums in which engagement is the key metric. The reason this place is valuable is because it has guidelines that prevent it from becoming that. I used to think that that was also the aspiration of the moderators - that they were happy to sacrifice "engagement" for encouraging the audience to which they wanted to appeal. This certainly seems to be their revealed preference when admonishing commenters not to be snarky or mean. Unfortunately, though they see these specks of sawdust clearly, they have no real explanation why the log of divisive, political posts are not dead at submission. Behold the triumph of tone over substance. Maybe my memory is faulty or maybe I was less interested in the off-topic posts, but I thought that, in the past, there used to less bending the knee to the mob and more appealing to the stated guidelines. It is not a community-enhancing action to publish guidelines and make exceptions because it's what a mob wants. That's not what moderating is. If the overriding guideline is engagement, then fine; say that and eliminate the other superfluous ones. It will save a lot of space on the Guidelines page and people coming here will understand that it is r/hn. So: 1. Disallowing posts like these is worth it in order to promote the goals often expressed by the moderators for this site and 2. It does not require a narrow interpretation of the guidelines to conclude that posts similar to these violate all the guidelines. Let's see what happens with this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681400
  - NomDePlum 11mo ago
    Search 'Trump' and you'll see plenty of submissions that should be removed according to your interpretation of the guidelines. Seeing something and objecting to its presence doesn't mean it has suddenly appeared, nothing has changed other than your sensitivity for whatever particular reason. It's how you are applying your perspective that is the difference I would suggest.
    - mhb 11mo ago
      Fine. All this stuff should be removed notwithstanding your enthusiasm for it. Whether or not I previously noticed it or objected to it is beside the point. Either the guidelines mean something or they don't. This isn't a subtle issue.
      - tomhow 11mo ago
        Just replied to you here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45688082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45688082 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45688885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45688885. The part of the guidelines that says "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" is as important as any other.
        tguvot 11mo ago
        and how exactly this post is "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" ? what you have here is article with misleading title that is contradicted in second paragraph of the article. also, in general, you can broadly apply "they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" to any given article here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046, you have "new phenomenon" . why won't you unflag it?
        tomhow 11mo ago
        > and how exactly this post is "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" ? We haven't said it is. In fact, we haven't really looked at the article. This submission got effectively no attention or engagement on HN. It spent zero time on the front page, and most of the discussion is this meta subthread. So, there's no aberration from the guidelines in the case of this item. > here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046, you have "new phenomenon" . why won't you unflag it? We also haven't seen that one. It also spent no time on the front page and had little discussion. Nobody has contacted us asking us to unflag it and making a case for it containing "significant new information". > also, in general, you can broadly apply "they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" to any given article That's false and is the most important point to recognise about HN. Most of what is in the mainstream news is not "new". It's mostly the same story with different details (i.e., most day-to-day political drama, celebrity news, crime stories, etc). Or they're notable for being unusual (e.g., person who wins the lottery three times) but not any kind of interesting new phenomenon. Sometimes a mainstream news item really is about an interesting new phenomenon, and that's when it qualifies for HN.