5 ms·

Search 'Trump' and you'll see plenty of submissions that should be removed according to your interpretation of the guidelines. Seeing something and objecting t

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.
      - tguvot 11mo ago
        >So, there's no aberration from the guidelines in the case of this item. as other guy wrote, this article essentially violates all rules. and there is no "new phenomenon" described in it. Why it's not flagged/killed by you ? There were dozens of times when articles about Israel were unflagged by mod team. Articles that violate all guidelines. Articles that are not even news but speculations. Articles with quality of sourcing that will be typically laughed out of the room here. Articles that 100% of time turn into circlejerk about Israel in which all dissenting opinions and facts (backed with links) are flagged away in order to suppress them (how does it goes with "important topic to discuss here") quoting you >- does this story contain “significant new information”? >- will many of the most positive contributors to HN think that this is an important topic to discuss here? >If it's yes to both then we'll turn off flags and spend the day trying to keep >the thread healthy. If not then we'll let it disappear. This is laughable And i won't say that this forum becomes reddit. it worst than reddit. at reddit mods of subreddits are honest enough with putting in guidelines "no zionists are allowed here". you hide behind "significant new information" and "important to discuss"
        deleted 11mo ago
        mhb 11mo ago
        I emailed as you suggested, and that's fine, but I thought I'd add a comment from the email since it seems relevant. The phrasing of the guidelines led me to believe that the "significant new information" was intended as a secondary or clarifying guideline. Otherwise why not just list it as one of the on-topic criteria? This clarification of the exception is relevant: "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." If I watched TV news, I'd expect to see many of the posts we're discussing on it. "New information" is an essentially tautological fig leaf that could justify the inclusion of anything that shows up in the eponymous news. If I need to, I can find numerous examples of flame wars incited by posts that violate all the guidelines except, possibly, this one about significant new information. Which seems to make this into a discussion about what is "significant". I think a community-trust enhancing action would be to eliminate this criterion. Some examples of posts which violate all the guidelines except, perhaps, being new information and also, perhaps, significant. Although, arguably, if they are new and significant would be covered by TV news. ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler (latimes.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44731958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44731958 How Israeli actions caused famine in Gaza, visualized https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45447699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45447699 IDF officers ordered to fire at unarmed crowds near Gaza food distribution sites (haaretz.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44402896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44402896 Israel, Hamas reach ceasefire deal to end 15 months of war in Gaza (reuters.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716440

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.
    - tguvot 11mo ago
      >So, there's no aberration from the guidelines in the case of this item. as other guy wrote, this article essentially violates all rules. and there is no "new phenomenon" described in it. Why it's not flagged/killed by you ? There were dozens of times when articles about Israel were unflagged by mod team. Articles that violate all guidelines. Articles that are not even news but speculations. Articles with quality of sourcing that will be typically laughed out of the room here. Articles that 100% of time turn into circlejerk about Israel in which all dissenting opinions and facts (backed with links) are flagged away in order to suppress them (how does it goes with "important topic to discuss here") quoting you >- does this story contain “significant new information”? >- will many of the most positive contributors to HN think that this is an important topic to discuss here? >If it's yes to both then we'll turn off flags and spend the day trying to keep >the thread healthy. If not then we'll let it disappear. This is laughable And i won't say that this forum becomes reddit. it worst than reddit. at reddit mods of subreddits are honest enough with putting in guidelines "no zionists are allowed here". you hide behind "significant new information" and "important to discuss"
      - deleted 11mo ago
        mhb 11mo ago
        I emailed as you suggested, and that's fine, but I thought I'd add a comment from the email since it seems relevant. The phrasing of the guidelines led me to believe that the "significant new information" was intended as a secondary or clarifying guideline. Otherwise why not just list it as one of the on-topic criteria? This clarification of the exception is relevant: "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." If I watched TV news, I'd expect to see many of the posts we're discussing on it. "New information" is an essentially tautological fig leaf that could justify the inclusion of anything that shows up in the eponymous news. If I need to, I can find numerous examples of flame wars incited by posts that violate all the guidelines except, possibly, this one about significant new information. Which seems to make this into a discussion about what is "significant". I think a community-trust enhancing action would be to eliminate this criterion. Some examples of posts which violate all the guidelines except, perhaps, being new information and also, perhaps, significant. Although, arguably, if they are new and significant would be covered by TV news. ‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler (latimes.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44731958 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44731958 How Israeli actions caused famine in Gaza, visualized https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45447699 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45447699 IDF officers ordered to fire at unarmed crowds near Gaza food distribution sites (haaretz.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44402896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44402896 Israel, Hamas reach ceasefire deal to end 15 months of war in Gaza (reuters.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716440