4 ms·

I've had a few posts deleted which were "general chatter", but were directed more towards one person. Thats understandable however as it can distract from the t

I've had a few posts deleted which were "general chatter", but were directed more towards one person. Thats understandable however as it can distract from the topic of the post. But it makes it difficult to continue interesting topics of conversation which are starting to diverge from the post. This is where I think a simple messaging system for the site would be useful, especially given the networking incentives of beginning startup entrepreneurs.. I think there may also be a general reluctance to post things which are challenging or negative for fear of either being downvoted like crazy, or looking bad in the eyes of YC if you have plans to apply. I wouldn't go as far as calling it sucking up, but it could refrain some people from saying whats really on their mind. The rate of submissions seems to be increasing too, which can make sifting through the new postings more difficult. It also dilutes commenting I've noticed. This could be why major posts like a new PG essay seem to gravitate more discussion. I would personally be game for the idea of limiting the number of new submissions a user can post over a given time. Maybe scale this value based on karma. This would at least make people think more carefully about what they are about to post. I understand this starts to limit the "anyone can post" nature of the site, but it could reap an overall benefit for all users by reducing information overload and concentrating discussion on fewer, good submissions. But you bring up a good point.. I'll make a conscious effort to post more challenging, thought provoking comments. I've got karma to burn :)

cstejerean 19y ago
I'm not sure if I like the idea of reducing the amount of links one can post. While certainly sifting through new items becomes harder the interesting ones will gravitate towards the top. As long as submissions aren't completely off topic I'm interested in reading them.
- jsjenkins168 19y ago
  True, but the limit need not be anything aggressive. Just simply having it and users knowing it is there could subconsciously promote more thoughtful postings. If anything, its good protection against a malicious flood attack (since users currently cant bury posts). Just an idea. Also, some of the most interesting postings to me personally never got upvoted by others very much. Was I not watching the new queue all the time I would have missed them completely..
SwellJoe 19y ago
"I think there may also be a general reluctance to post things which are challenging or negative for fear of either being downvoted like crazy, or looking bad in the eyes of YC if you have plans to apply." There's a line between being challenging or negative and being hostile. I've seen pg prune hostile comments, but never challenging or negative ones (and I've made quite a few of both--I don't think I get a special pass because I have a YC funded company). And I also strongly doubt challenging pg or anyone else here with a well-thought out argument would have a negative impact on applications for funding. There are plenty of strong personalities in YC companies, many of whom are not particularly intimidated by pg--I strongly doubt the YC folks have a problem with that, at all. Not being cowed by challenges from your investors and advisers is probably even a necessity for success, and pg has mentioned it in several talks and at least one essay.[1] Of course, that doesn't invalidate your argument. Maybe folks are hesitant to challenge folks for fear of hurting their chances with YC. It's a mistake to hesitate for that reason. But it's entirely possible that people do. 1: Search for the word "adult" in this essay: http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html

cstejerean 19y ago

I'm not sure if I like the idea of reducing the amount of links one can post. While certainly sifting through new items becomes harder the interesting ones will gravitate towards the top. As long as submissions aren't completely off topic I'm interested in reading them.

jsjenkins168 19y ago
True, but the limit need not be anything aggressive. Just simply having it and users knowing it is there could subconsciously promote more thoughtful postings. If anything, its good protection against a malicious flood attack (since users currently cant bury posts). Just an idea. Also, some of the most interesting postings to me personally never got upvoted by others very much. Was I not watching the new queue all the time I would have missed them completely..

SwellJoe 19y ago

"I think there may also be a general reluctance to post things which are challenging or negative for fear of either being downvoted like crazy, or looking bad in the eyes of YC if you have plans to apply." There's a line between being challenging or negative and being hostile. I've seen pg prune hostile comments, but never challenging or negative ones (and I've made quite a few of both--I don't think I get a special pass because I have a YC funded company). And I also strongly doubt challenging pg or anyone else here with a well-thought out argument would have a negative impact on applications for funding. There are plenty of strong personalities in YC companies, many of whom are not particularly intimidated by pg--I strongly doubt the YC folks have a problem with that, at all. Not being cowed by challenges from your investors and advisers is probably even a necessity for success, and pg has mentioned it in several talks and at least one essay.[1] Of course, that doesn't invalidate your argument. Maybe folks are hesitant to challenge folks for fear of hurting their chances with YC. It's a mistake to hesitate for that reason. But it's entirely possible that people do. 1: Search for the word "adult" in this essay: http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html http://paulgraham.com/notnot.html