4 ms·

I have been discouraging people from flagging ‘articles that they think don't belong on HN’, because you have disabled my ability to do so time and time again.

by sph 3mo ago

I have been discouraging people from flagging ‘articles that they think don't belong on HN’, because you have disabled my ability to do so time and time again. In private conversation with you, you have confirmed that if I flag/vouch stuff you mods don’t agree with, I get the privilege taken away, even if I genuinely believe a post to fall outside of the guidelines. So either I read your mind, or it is best not to flag unless something is obviously, unequivocally, running afoul of the guidelines. I keep being annoyed at how arbitrary, and dare I say hypocritical, the entire flagging mechanism and its surrounding politics are.

bellowsgulch 3mo ago
Dan likes some people and you ain't in the group, buddy.
- dang 3mo ago
  I like people who follow the site guidelines and want to use HN as intended. That doesn't mean I dislike people who don't, but that side of the moon is more...nuanced.
- Barbing 3mo ago
  He has no idea who I am. Privately, when I was new he was polite and helpful. (Tried to be polite, was returned.) /singular anecdote for reader reference
dang 3mo ago
> In private conversation with you, you have confirmed that if I flag/vouch stuff you mods don’t agree with, I get the privilege taken away, even if I genuinely believe a post to fall outside of the guidelines. People love to make vague claims like this based on things we supposedly said. How about you quote what exactly what I literally said so readers can make up their own minds? Sorry if that is testy (well, it is testy), but I can't count the number of times that disgruntled users have posted falsely to HN threads to vent their residual frustrations with the mods.
- sph 3mo ago
  Sure, quoting select passages over multiple emails with you personally. > I'm afraid we took vouching privileges away from your account because you vouched for too many comments that were unsubstantive and/or flamebait and/or otherwise broke the site guidelines > If you want to build up a track record for a while of vouching for good comments only, and then email so we can look at the recent vouches Wondering how does one tell what is ‘good’ in your mind: > Btw if you're unsure about a case you can always check with us about it. I know the borderline cases are not always easy to call. —- In other words, do as dang himself would do, or get penalised. I am not in the business of mind reading. This was years ago. I am pretty sure lately I have been flagging/vouching stuff I genuinely believe were OK, though you have all the data in front to smite me with “ah, but on this day you vouched this bad comment! Gotcha!” so in the end it’s always a losing battle. In any case, my issue is with you saying, I quote, ”users should flag articles that they think don't belong on HN”. Emphasis mine. No. It is more nuanced than that.
  - dang 3mo ago
    Kudos to you for responding exactly as I asked! That is rare to begin with, and more so when I'm being irritable. Big respect. I can see how using the word "good" was confusing, but I just meant the opposite of "comments that were unsubstantive and/or flamebait and/or otherwise broke the site guidelines". It just boils down to: what fits the guidelines or not. > Wondering how does one tell what is ‘good’ in your mind Since you can't read my mind (at least I assume you can't, and if you could you wouldn't have this question), that's not doable. What you can do is assess things according to your own reading of the site guidelines. If you assimilate https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and evaluate comments based on that and not just on what you like/dislike, then I imagine you won't end up too far from where the mods are, because that's what we're also trying to do. I'm sure there will always be individual cases where we disagree—even tomhow and I disagree on individual cases—but they should be a minority. If there are specific cases where you think we got it wrong, I'd be interested to see links, and we're always willing to hear a contrary argument.
    - 3mo ago
PennRobotics 3mo ago
Flagging, to me, seems like pissing in the wind. If I notice serial posters submitting extremely low effort content (a pair of their own posts every waking hour from "6 months and 5 minutes ago", off-topic wikipedia nearly once a day, "I have 60000+ points but only upload from thealtantic/guardian/nytimes") then I go on an irate ten-minute flagging binge. I've also been aghast at the nerve of those same serial posters applying the letter of the law against other users. I genuinely wouldn't care if Bartosz Ciechanowski only self-promotes every last one of his own posts. Some users are significantly more interesting than others, whether or not they violate the site guidelines marginally on a technicality. I have suspected it's possible some users flags are worth more than others, and I wouldn't be surprised if my flagging ability was silently removed several years ago.

by sph 3mo ago

bellowsgulch 3mo ago

Dan likes some people and you ain't in the group, buddy.

dang 3mo ago
I like people who follow the site guidelines and want to use HN as intended. That doesn't mean I dislike people who don't, but that side of the moon is more...nuanced.
Barbing 3mo ago
He has no idea who I am. Privately, when I was new he was polite and helpful. (Tried to be polite, was returned.) /singular anecdote for reader reference

dang 3mo ago

> In private conversation with you, you have confirmed that if I flag/vouch stuff you mods don’t agree with, I get the privilege taken away, even if I genuinely believe a post to fall outside of the guidelines. People love to make vague claims like this based on things we supposedly said. How about you quote what exactly what I literally said so readers can make up their own minds? Sorry if that is testy (well, it is testy), but I can't count the number of times that disgruntled users have posted falsely to HN threads to vent their residual frustrations with the mods.

sph 3mo ago
Sure, quoting select passages over multiple emails with you personally. > I'm afraid we took vouching privileges away from your account because you vouched for too many comments that were unsubstantive and/or flamebait and/or otherwise broke the site guidelines > If you want to build up a track record for a while of vouching for good comments only, and then email so we can look at the recent vouches Wondering how does one tell what is ‘good’ in your mind: > Btw if you're unsure about a case you can always check with us about it. I know the borderline cases are not always easy to call. —- In other words, do as dang himself would do, or get penalised. I am not in the business of mind reading. This was years ago. I am pretty sure lately I have been flagging/vouching stuff I genuinely believe were OK, though you have all the data in front to smite me with “ah, but on this day you vouched this bad comment! Gotcha!” so in the end it’s always a losing battle. In any case, my issue is with you saying, I quote, ”users should flag articles that they think don't belong on HN”. Emphasis mine. No. It is more nuanced than that.
- dang 3mo ago
  Kudos to you for responding exactly as I asked! That is rare to begin with, and more so when I'm being irritable. Big respect. I can see how using the word "good" was confusing, but I just meant the opposite of "comments that were unsubstantive and/or flamebait and/or otherwise broke the site guidelines". It just boils down to: what fits the guidelines or not. > Wondering how does one tell what is ‘good’ in your mind Since you can't read my mind (at least I assume you can't, and if you could you wouldn't have this question), that's not doable. What you can do is assess things according to your own reading of the site guidelines. If you assimilate https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and evaluate comments based on that and not just on what you like/dislike, then I imagine you won't end up too far from where the mods are, because that's what we're also trying to do. I'm sure there will always be individual cases where we disagree—even tomhow and I disagree on individual cases—but they should be a minority. If there are specific cases where you think we got it wrong, I'd be interested to see links, and we're always willing to hear a contrary argument.
  - 3mo ago

PennRobotics 3mo ago

Flagging, to me, seems like pissing in the wind. If I notice serial posters submitting extremely low effort content (a pair of their own posts every waking hour from "6 months and 5 minutes ago", off-topic wikipedia nearly once a day, "I have 60000+ points but only upload from thealtantic/guardian/nytimes") then I go on an irate ten-minute flagging binge. I've also been aghast at the nerve of those same serial posters applying the letter of the law against other users. I genuinely wouldn't care if Bartosz Ciechanowski only self-promotes every last one of his own posts. Some users are significantly more interesting than others, whether or not they violate the site guidelines marginally on a technicality. I have suspected it's possible some users flags are worth more than others, and I wouldn't be surprised if my flagging ability was silently removed several years ago.