7 ms·

In particular, > Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site.

xenophanes 18y ago
I think that's a mistake. How are people going to learn their submissions are off topic if everyone refuses to tell them?
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  It's a known bug. (Or to the developers, a feature) Doesn't do any good to complain. Many of us have tried.
  - Retric 18y ago
    Not really, people with high Karma can flag posts and get them taken down. This happens a lot more with politics than other types of controversial topics. Personally I could flag this post, but it's interesting AND novel so IMO it stays. Edit: "The story is on topic." (PG) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=460159 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=460159
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      The bug being the policy of discouraging feedback to commenters/submitters on exactly why their comment/article was down-modded. Meta-discussion, last I checked, was no-no.
      - Retric 18y ago
        Meta-discussion is not needed. You can teach a neural net to dance simply by saying Yes, and No. The problem with saying "you did X wrong here is how you fix it" is many people only hear "Only do Y" where we want any acceptable submission even if it's on juggling (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=418460 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=418460).
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        I've got the "interesting to hackers" bit. What happens is somebody makes a comment, gets downmodded, then wonders why. So they ask (trust me, I've tried this). Their question itself then gets downmodded -- meta discussions not tolerated. So the commenter, who is not psychic, is left with negative feedback from the moderation system without any idea at all what or what not to do in the future. This idea of treating HN as just a large dataset with contributors simply being data suppliers to train the neural net has some really big limitations. Last I checked, the board was full of human beings, and posting in some fashion approximates the social activity of having a conversation. The further the system strays from the social/linguistic/psychological needs of conversation, the less effective it is as a community facilitator, in my opinion. Meta-discussion might not be needed by the computer, but it's a natural part of human behavior and to the degree the system does not allow this, the system is broken. My opinion only.
        Retric 18y ago
        It's not a private discussion. You can see other posts that where up modded. So for the most part you can learn what a good post is by looking at good examples. So yes you can get down modded for asking but think of it like a Nash Equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium) the benefit you can from Meta discussion is at the cost of everyone else who needs to read it and understands the guidelines. Even as it benefits others who don't understand. I expect if people keep trying to make insightful comments then they can learn what people on HN like. Or if you really don't understand take a karma hit and get some feedback. Just don't think Meta Discussions are without cost. A tiny fraction of the time it's probably, OK but it's extremely corrosive. PS: It's easy to waste peoples time by saying thinks like "My opinion only" or "I don't mind getting down modded for this" but if we post it people can assume that so such things just clogg up the communication channel.
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Either I'm not making my point or you're not receiving it. I got your point. Data and the "communications channel" trumps the individual. The needs of the group win. But I already had it. I'm just wondering if any of this is sinking in with you. So far, I think the answer is "no" There seems to be a prevalent opinion that the purpose of HN participants is to provide data, the blander the better. Real world group discussions are interesting mixes of public and private conversations. Ever sit in a crowded conference room? Ever work in a large group that made significant progress towards collecting and analyzing data, coming up with new and interesting conclusions? It's a balance of individuals and group needs. Either you advance the art of synthesis, not just rating, or your "data" will eventually be scraped and fed into just another larger, better data aggregation system. It's a simple question, really: either you build systems to accommodate people or you try to redefine people to fit your system. You can only get so far trying to make people fit the system. I've been on here for more than a year. To the degree people are providing active negative feedback (how many HN-is-going-to-heck threads have there been? How many people get downmodded to -20 and never work out why?) I'd think it would be cause for a bit of self-reflection. Subjectivity or opinions, are what it's all about. The whole thing is opinions. You don't get the magic from simple up-down voting and promoting terseness over humanity. In fact, you want as much subjectivity as possible. The comm channel can handle it. If a reader is getting bored or seeing too much that turns them off, that's a UI issue, not a poster issue. Critiquing users for acting naturally is not-so-smart.
      - xenophanes 18y ago
        You are engaging in meta discussion too :) I think only certain types of meta discussion are harmful, and one has to differentiate.
        yters 18y ago
        What kind of meta discussion is harmful? I'd say none of it. If people don't like a meta discussion, they'll not vote it up, and it thus won't consume the top reading spots. A tricky issue is that threads are elevated based on the originator's score. But, there are a number of threads where the originator may have a low or negative score, and follow ups have enormous scores. Where should these go?
- rms 18y ago
  When they show up dead, but I guess if they don't have showdead on then there is no feedback that the post is killed.
- pg 18y ago
  They'll notice the submissions get no comments or upvotes.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - petercooper 18y ago
    The problem, though, is that "off-topic" (as judged by the guidelines page) stuff can get voted up. My argument is that if something gets voted up here (legitimately) then it's de facto on-topic, but that other poster disagrees and is wondering how to give feedback on that without breaking the rules.
  - davidw 18y ago
    Why wouldn't they get any comments or upvotes? You just posted a thread about a big spike in new users. There's no guarantee that they have read and taken to heart the guidelines.
    - pg 18y ago
      I mean that if a submission actually is offtopic, users will flag it and editors will kill it. And once it's dead it will get no comments or upvotes.

I think that's a mistake. How are people going to learn their submissions are off topic if everyone refuses to tell them?

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
It's a known bug. (Or to the developers, a feature) Doesn't do any good to complain. Many of us have tried.
- Retric 18y ago
  Not really, people with high Karma can flag posts and get them taken down. This happens a lot more with politics than other types of controversial topics. Personally I could flag this post, but it's interesting AND novel so IMO it stays. Edit: "The story is on topic." (PG) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=460159 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=460159
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    The bug being the policy of discouraging feedback to commenters/submitters on exactly why their comment/article was down-modded. Meta-discussion, last I checked, was no-no.
    - Retric 18y ago
      Meta-discussion is not needed. You can teach a neural net to dance simply by saying Yes, and No. The problem with saying "you did X wrong here is how you fix it" is many people only hear "Only do Y" where we want any acceptable submission even if it's on juggling (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=418460 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=418460).
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        I've got the "interesting to hackers" bit. What happens is somebody makes a comment, gets downmodded, then wonders why. So they ask (trust me, I've tried this). Their question itself then gets downmodded -- meta discussions not tolerated. So the commenter, who is not psychic, is left with negative feedback from the moderation system without any idea at all what or what not to do in the future. This idea of treating HN as just a large dataset with contributors simply being data suppliers to train the neural net has some really big limitations. Last I checked, the board was full of human beings, and posting in some fashion approximates the social activity of having a conversation. The further the system strays from the social/linguistic/psychological needs of conversation, the less effective it is as a community facilitator, in my opinion. Meta-discussion might not be needed by the computer, but it's a natural part of human behavior and to the degree the system does not allow this, the system is broken. My opinion only.
        Retric 18y ago
        It's not a private discussion. You can see other posts that where up modded. So for the most part you can learn what a good post is by looking at good examples. So yes you can get down modded for asking but think of it like a Nash Equilibrium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium) the benefit you can from Meta discussion is at the cost of everyone else who needs to read it and understands the guidelines. Even as it benefits others who don't understand. I expect if people keep trying to make insightful comments then they can learn what people on HN like. Or if you really don't understand take a karma hit and get some feedback. Just don't think Meta Discussions are without cost. A tiny fraction of the time it's probably, OK but it's extremely corrosive. PS: It's easy to waste peoples time by saying thinks like "My opinion only" or "I don't mind getting down modded for this" but if we post it people can assume that so such things just clogg up the communication channel.
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Either I'm not making my point or you're not receiving it. I got your point. Data and the "communications channel" trumps the individual. The needs of the group win. But I already had it. I'm just wondering if any of this is sinking in with you. So far, I think the answer is "no" There seems to be a prevalent opinion that the purpose of HN participants is to provide data, the blander the better. Real world group discussions are interesting mixes of public and private conversations. Ever sit in a crowded conference room? Ever work in a large group that made significant progress towards collecting and analyzing data, coming up with new and interesting conclusions? It's a balance of individuals and group needs. Either you advance the art of synthesis, not just rating, or your "data" will eventually be scraped and fed into just another larger, better data aggregation system. It's a simple question, really: either you build systems to accommodate people or you try to redefine people to fit your system. You can only get so far trying to make people fit the system. I've been on here for more than a year. To the degree people are providing active negative feedback (how many HN-is-going-to-heck threads have there been? How many people get downmodded to -20 and never work out why?) I'd think it would be cause for a bit of self-reflection. Subjectivity or opinions, are what it's all about. The whole thing is opinions. You don't get the magic from simple up-down voting and promoting terseness over humanity. In fact, you want as much subjectivity as possible. The comm channel can handle it. If a reader is getting bored or seeing too much that turns them off, that's a UI issue, not a poster issue. Critiquing users for acting naturally is not-so-smart.
    - xenophanes 18y ago
      You are engaging in meta discussion too :) I think only certain types of meta discussion are harmful, and one has to differentiate.
      - yters 18y ago
        What kind of meta discussion is harmful? I'd say none of it. If people don't like a meta discussion, they'll not vote it up, and it thus won't consume the top reading spots. A tricky issue is that threads are elevated based on the originator's score. But, there are a number of threads where the originator may have a low or negative score, and follow ups have enormous scores. Where should these go?
rms 18y ago
When they show up dead, but I guess if they don't have showdead on then there is no feedback that the post is killed.
pg 18y ago
They'll notice the submissions get no comments or upvotes.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- petercooper 18y ago
  The problem, though, is that "off-topic" (as judged by the guidelines page) stuff can get voted up. My argument is that if something gets voted up here (legitimately) then it's de facto on-topic, but that other poster disagrees and is wondering how to give feedback on that without breaking the rules.
- davidw 18y ago
  Why wouldn't they get any comments or upvotes? You just posted a thread about a big spike in new users. There's no guarantee that they have read and taken to heart the guidelines.
  - pg 18y ago
    I mean that if a submission actually is offtopic, users will flag it and editors will kill it. And once it's dead it will get no comments or upvotes.