2 ms·

Oy. All day long I slave over a hot repl, and for what? Such ingratitude, I tell you.

by pg 18y ago

ErrantX 18y ago
I have to confess that the idea is clever: but ultimately does not fix the problem. The issue, as I see it, is not so much the posts as the voting. Which varies wildly and is fairly indescriminate. A worthless but sensationalist message might get lots of upvotes whilst a shy but informative message will get missed. I suggest it is the voting practices that need to be addressed. I vote very rarely on messages (maybe once or twice a day): making my approval something "to be gained". I know others use that approach too - and I think it makes things worth much more. Ideally (IMO) a good situation should be one where a post with 5 votes should be stunningly good and 20 votes a "once in a lifetime" achievment. Some ideas... - Vote weighting (Karma or average Karma effects the weight of your vote) - Include "Downvotes" next to the total. This helps identify messages with a lot of disagreement (i.e. something with a 1 might have 20 downs and 21 ups - that is worth taking a look at). - Im not sure how you position the comments (never tracked them in depth) but I think you could try - - New comments stay at the "top" of the page for a set time (an hr perhaps?) before being ranked properly. - - Ranked posts: push all negative marked posts below -1 to the bottom. All positive stuff to the top marked on activity (a combination of the direct replies and the number of up&down votes) That doesn't totally fix the problem but I suggest it might have an impact :D
- tome 18y ago
  I've wondered for a long time whether the following system would work: Everyone can vote posts up or down if they like. There is a feature which statistically analyses how your votes correlate with other votes, and you can choose to see votes that the analysis predicts you will find interesting and worthwhile based on what you have liked seeing in the past.
  - ErrantX 18y ago
    That is interesting... (you get my upvote :D) You could take that farther and create a "pool" of good users who vote and comment in keeping with the HN style (a pool that could, of course, grow over time) and if your voting habits correlated to them your vote began to be worth more.
    - tome 18y ago
      Thanks! I think you're right, that in order to avoid fragmenting the site into a lot of different subclasses with different tastes that there could be a pool of "good" users who determine what the default "good" story and "good" post are.
      - jacquesm 18y ago
        I think you're subconsciously reinventing k-means clustering with random starting points. Subclasses might not be such a bad idea at all actually, after all there are different coffee shops for different tastes as well. If a site could be made to automatically appear as a place that caters to your 'taste' that would be a pretty awesome development. Everybody would feel right at home.
        tome 18y ago
        I know very little about statistics so I wouldn't have much of a clue about the right algorithm to use, but I do have a good idea of the behaviour I would like. I think the behaviour I want is exactly that required by the Netflix Prize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_prize although rather than rating comments 1 to 5 I think I'd probably just have three levels (don't appreciate, neutral, appreciate).
        ErrantX 18y ago
        This is a fair point. Some people are here for startup stuff. Some people for codign/programming stuff. Yet others (though probably a smaller demographic) are here for social stuff. And more. Plus others are here for a mix. Some way to tailor what you see would be awesome! not too much that each "genre" is different but enough that the posts or articles you want to see are at the top :D
  - unalone 18y ago
    Ugh. Count me out. I'm not a fan of how the trend online is towards algorithmic recommendation rather than on editorializing. I mean, I understand why a user-based moderation system is good. I like that content is pruned out a bit. At the same time, I think that public points mean ultimately ignoring complexities of a topic, thread, or person for the sake of easing consumption. I'm not a fan of that. A recommendation system is even worse. That actively encourages people to look only at the path of least resistance for them. It means less emphasis on people who argue valid points that you don't want to hear and more emphasis on groupthink. If anything, the trend should be reversed, and people should feel freer to give their opinion without a chance of whiplash.
    - tome 18y ago
      I understand your reluctance, and I'd love to see strong editorializing on some site on the internet. It seems, though, as any site becomes reasonably large the editorializing disappears and is replaced with algorithms. Has the idea I proposed (essentially the Netflix recommendation system) ever been tried before for a comment/story posting system? If not, why not go the whole hog and try it? Let's see if it works.
      - unalone 18y ago
        That's why I'd propose a forking. Create mini-HN communities and slowly thin out the userbase. That's if the site ever gets too big. It's perfectly manageable right now for me - I don't think new systems are necessary. Ask yourself: has content recommendation ever worked? I've never seen an "If you liked X you'll like Y" work for any original content. Even for movies/books it's shady at best. Working with something as complex as comments is too tricky to make worse. How do you measure tone versus stance versus wit versus writing style? They're all elements of what I look for in comments.
        tome 18y ago
        Just because it's never worked as a movie recommendation system doesn't discourage me from trying it for a commenting system! (Especially since the idea is so trivial, and ought to be easy to implement).
- ericb 18y ago
  Using median instead of average would at least help the sensationalist voting problem.
  - silentbicycle 18y ago
    VERY good point!
davidw 18y ago
Shouldn't you be off changing diapers?:-)
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
brlewis 18y ago
We've seen the Arc code for this site and know you didn't need to spend all day in the repl. More likely you spent all day in a comfortable chair with a hot cup of tea thinking about how the feature should work.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 18y ago
You chose a really nice color for the highlighting. There, I complimented it.
- pg 18y ago
  Thanks! I tried about 30 different colors. (It takes a surprising amount of work to make it look like the site has no design.)
  - tptacek 18y ago
    Consider highlighting usernames for everyone in a darker shade of grey. The username is the most important thing in the line; it should stand out.
    - unalone 18y ago
      No, but that gets rid of the really clean feel! I like that this site's only got 4 (5, now) colors. It feels so minimal that way. (Then, I enjoy the feeling when I discover something like clicking a user name and finding that it's a link when it's the first time; perhaps that's not the attitude pg wants?)
    - diN0bot 18y ago
      i'd say the line is minimally important. flag might be crucial, though i've never personally had to use it. the link and parent links, as well as time, are convenient. i bet discussion interestingness improves by removing the username and points.
      - unalone 18y ago
        Not username. That would make it harder to know when you're having a back-and-forth, and that changes the nature of the discussion. Removing points would be a good idea, though - is there any advantage to having that visible beforehand?
        18y ago

Oy. All day long I slave over a hot repl, and for what? Such ingratitude, I tell you.

by pg 18y ago

Oy. All day long I slave over a hot repl, and for what? Such ingratitude, I tell you.

I have to confess that the idea is clever: but ultimately does not fix the problem. The issue, as I see it, is not so much the posts as the voting. Which varies wildly and is fairly indescriminate. A worthless but sensationalist message might get lots of upvotes whilst a shy but informative message will get missed. I suggest it is the voting practices that need to be addressed. I vote very rarely on messages (maybe once or twice a day): making my approval something "to be gained". I know others use that approach too - and I think it makes things worth much more. Ideally (IMO) a good situation should be one where a post with 5 votes should be stunningly good and 20 votes a "once in a lifetime" achievment. Some ideas... - Vote weighting (Karma or average Karma effects the weight of your vote) - Include "Downvotes" next to the total. This helps identify messages with a lot of disagreement (i.e. something with a 1 might have 20 downs and 21 ups - that is worth taking a look at). - Im not sure how you position the comments (never tracked them in depth) but I think you could try - - New comments stay at the "top" of the page for a set time (an hr perhaps?) before being ranked properly. - - Ranked posts: push all negative marked posts below -1 to the bottom. All positive stuff to the top marked on activity (a combination of the direct replies and the number of up&down votes) That doesn't totally fix the problem but I suggest it might have an impact :D

tome 18y ago
I've wondered for a long time whether the following system would work: Everyone can vote posts up or down if they like. There is a feature which statistically analyses how your votes correlate with other votes, and you can choose to see votes that the analysis predicts you will find interesting and worthwhile based on what you have liked seeing in the past.
- ErrantX 18y ago
  That is interesting... (you get my upvote :D) You could take that farther and create a "pool" of good users who vote and comment in keeping with the HN style (a pool that could, of course, grow over time) and if your voting habits correlated to them your vote began to be worth more.
  - tome 18y ago
    Thanks! I think you're right, that in order to avoid fragmenting the site into a lot of different subclasses with different tastes that there could be a pool of "good" users who determine what the default "good" story and "good" post are.
    - jacquesm 18y ago
      I think you're subconsciously reinventing k-means clustering with random starting points. Subclasses might not be such a bad idea at all actually, after all there are different coffee shops for different tastes as well. If a site could be made to automatically appear as a place that caters to your 'taste' that would be a pretty awesome development. Everybody would feel right at home.
      - tome 18y ago
        I know very little about statistics so I wouldn't have much of a clue about the right algorithm to use, but I do have a good idea of the behaviour I would like. I think the behaviour I want is exactly that required by the Netflix Prize: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_prize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_prize although rather than rating comments 1 to 5 I think I'd probably just have three levels (don't appreciate, neutral, appreciate).
      - ErrantX 18y ago
        This is a fair point. Some people are here for startup stuff. Some people for codign/programming stuff. Yet others (though probably a smaller demographic) are here for social stuff. And more. Plus others are here for a mix. Some way to tailor what you see would be awesome! not too much that each "genre" is different but enough that the posts or articles you want to see are at the top :D
- unalone 18y ago
  Ugh. Count me out. I'm not a fan of how the trend online is towards algorithmic recommendation rather than on editorializing. I mean, I understand why a user-based moderation system is good. I like that content is pruned out a bit. At the same time, I think that public points mean ultimately ignoring complexities of a topic, thread, or person for the sake of easing consumption. I'm not a fan of that. A recommendation system is even worse. That actively encourages people to look only at the path of least resistance for them. It means less emphasis on people who argue valid points that you don't want to hear and more emphasis on groupthink. If anything, the trend should be reversed, and people should feel freer to give their opinion without a chance of whiplash.
  - tome 18y ago
    I understand your reluctance, and I'd love to see strong editorializing on some site on the internet. It seems, though, as any site becomes reasonably large the editorializing disappears and is replaced with algorithms. Has the idea I proposed (essentially the Netflix recommendation system) ever been tried before for a comment/story posting system? If not, why not go the whole hog and try it? Let's see if it works.
    - unalone 18y ago
      That's why I'd propose a forking. Create mini-HN communities and slowly thin out the userbase. That's if the site ever gets too big. It's perfectly manageable right now for me - I don't think new systems are necessary. Ask yourself: has content recommendation ever worked? I've never seen an "If you liked X you'll like Y" work for any original content. Even for movies/books it's shady at best. Working with something as complex as comments is too tricky to make worse. How do you measure tone versus stance versus wit versus writing style? They're all elements of what I look for in comments.
      - tome 18y ago
        Just because it's never worked as a movie recommendation system doesn't discourage me from trying it for a commenting system! (Especially since the idea is so trivial, and ought to be easy to implement).
ericb 18y ago
Using median instead of average would at least help the sensationalist voting problem.
- silentbicycle 18y ago
  VERY good point!

davidw 18y ago

Shouldn't you be off changing diapers?:-)

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

brlewis 18y ago

We've seen the Arc code for this site and know you didn't need to spend all day in the repl. More likely you spent all day in a comfortable chair with a hot cup of tea thinking about how the feature should work.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 18y ago

You chose a really nice color for the highlighting. There, I complimented it.

pg 18y ago
Thanks! I tried about 30 different colors. (It takes a surprising amount of work to make it look like the site has no design.)
- tptacek 18y ago
  Consider highlighting usernames for everyone in a darker shade of grey. The username is the most important thing in the line; it should stand out.
  - unalone 18y ago
    No, but that gets rid of the really clean feel! I like that this site's only got 4 (5, now) colors. It feels so minimal that way. (Then, I enjoy the feeling when I discover something like clicking a user name and finding that it's a link when it's the first time; perhaps that's not the attitude pg wants?)
  - diN0bot 18y ago
    i'd say the line is minimally important. flag might be crucial, though i've never personally had to use it. the link and parent links, as well as time, are convenient. i bet discussion interestingness improves by removing the username and points.
    - unalone 18y ago
      Not username. That would make it harder to know when you're having a back-and-forth, and that changes the nature of the discussion. Removing points would be a good idea, though - is there any advantage to having that visible beforehand?
      - 18y ago