3 ms·

It's a constant feedback loop. Post something. See how people react. Fine-tune your communications strategy. Repeat. --- You're correct in that there seem

by brk 17y ago

It's a constant feedback loop. Post something. See how people react. Fine-tune your communications strategy. Repeat. --- You're correct in that there seems to be a fairly fine line here between "humor" and "useless post". I think part of this comes from the fact that we've all been online for more than a minute and have already seen/heard most of the standard comments and jokes. If you can come up with a uniquely humorous post that is also on-topic and enlightening on some level, most people will appreciate it. Timing can also be important. I didn't see your "What's the difference" post. But, if that was an early comment at the top-level, it could be regarded as useless. If it was a response 8 levels deep to a heated argument where people are starting to split hairs, and you step in with something that can cause people to take a step back and actually see the forest, it can sometimes go over well.

ars 17y ago
Not really related to the subject, but if you follow your feedback loop you will quickly end up with nothing new on the site, but only everyone reinforcing the vocal majority. Basically you'll start writing what people want to hear, instead of what you believe. This is the main culture problem at many social bookmarking sites - whichever group was first basically "locks" the mindset, and no changes are accepted (at least not without massive co-ordination of some other group that wants to take over). It's important to never downmod (and upmod) based on whether or not you agree with the subject! People seem to do the right thing here, but mainly: upmod posts that bring something new to the discussion, whether or not they are correct, and whether or not you agree with them. Downmod spam and useless junk. Downmod incorrect items (but only those that don't add something new, for example that don't clarify a common misconception or error) to -1 (but no lower). Leave the rest alone.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  upmod posts that bring something new to the discussion, whether or not they are correct, and whether or not you agree with them. I would find this very difficult for a post that [I felt] was not correct (and not interesting), even if it was a viewpoint which hadn't been mentioned yet in such a thread.
- mseebach 17y ago
  That depends on how you interpret and apply the feedback. Accepting feedback for your style and manner, will help you get the substance of your argument across.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  if you follow your feedback loop you will quickly end up with nothing new on the site, but only everyone reinforcing the vocal majority. To the contrary, I think it's possible to disagree factually with someone without being time-wastingly snarky or shallow or cliche. (I hope this comment proves to be an example of what I claim.) I got downmodded once, badly, for a comment that consisted of thanks to a submitter for submitting a post. But probably because I wrote "LOL" as the first sentence of the comment (I really had laughed out loud at the post, which was a serious post about an industry news item), and didn't add any additional information or thoughtful discussion, my comment was deemed a Reddit-style comment and voted down ruthlessly. Now if I just agree with a submission or a comment as a good contribution to HN, but have nothing further to say, I upvote. If I disagree (as here), I express my disagreement in what I hope is polite language. The feedback loop functions mostly by training us about MANNER of submissions and comments. I think I'm still able to take a controversial point of view, as long as I don't inject flaming and back up my factual statements. And I strongly appreciate comments back to me of the nature of "Could you please provide evidence for your claim?" and post comments of a similar nature to other participants here. It's important to never downmod (and upmod) based on whether or not you agree with the subject! The founder of the site, pg, has expressed disagreement with this idea in a public comment, although I don't have the reference at hand. Sometimes downmodding to show factual disagreement is the most efficient treatment for a comment that mostly expresses a wrong opinion with little sign that the commenter will be willing to bring forth evidence, or with an existing reply-to-reply comment showing that the commenter doesn't think evidence is an issue he should concern himself with.
  - russell 17y ago
    There is very little thanking on HN. I like that compared to sites where the first 10 comments are thanking the poster for posting. I use thanks sparingly, like the time when someone rose to my defense after an ad hominem attack.
dhimes 17y ago
Another thing to keep in mind is that while a remark like that may pass if it's one of only a couple on the screen, sometimes a very interesting discussion (or a few) does break out on what seems to be at first an innocuous post. When that happens, your comment can find itself all alone at the bottom and following a few interesting threads. Then it can take hits because of the glaring contrast.

by brk 17y ago

ars 17y ago

Not really related to the subject, but if you follow your feedback loop you will quickly end up with nothing new on the site, but only everyone reinforcing the vocal majority. Basically you'll start writing what people want to hear, instead of what you believe. This is the main culture problem at many social bookmarking sites - whichever group was first basically "locks" the mindset, and no changes are accepted (at least not without massive co-ordination of some other group that wants to take over). It's important to never downmod (and upmod) based on whether or not you agree with the subject! People seem to do the right thing here, but mainly: upmod posts that bring something new to the discussion, whether or not they are correct, and whether or not you agree with them. Downmod spam and useless junk. Downmod incorrect items (but only those that don't add something new, for example that don't clarify a common misconception or error) to -1 (but no lower). Leave the rest alone.

randallsquared 17y ago
upmod posts that bring something new to the discussion, whether or not they are correct, and whether or not you agree with them. I would find this very difficult for a post that [I felt] was not correct (and not interesting), even if it was a viewpoint which hadn't been mentioned yet in such a thread.
mseebach 17y ago
That depends on how you interpret and apply the feedback. Accepting feedback for your style and manner, will help you get the substance of your argument across.
tokenadult 17y ago
if you follow your feedback loop you will quickly end up with nothing new on the site, but only everyone reinforcing the vocal majority. To the contrary, I think it's possible to disagree factually with someone without being time-wastingly snarky or shallow or cliche. (I hope this comment proves to be an example of what I claim.) I got downmodded once, badly, for a comment that consisted of thanks to a submitter for submitting a post. But probably because I wrote "LOL" as the first sentence of the comment (I really had laughed out loud at the post, which was a serious post about an industry news item), and didn't add any additional information or thoughtful discussion, my comment was deemed a Reddit-style comment and voted down ruthlessly. Now if I just agree with a submission or a comment as a good contribution to HN, but have nothing further to say, I upvote. If I disagree (as here), I express my disagreement in what I hope is polite language. The feedback loop functions mostly by training us about MANNER of submissions and comments. I think I'm still able to take a controversial point of view, as long as I don't inject flaming and back up my factual statements. And I strongly appreciate comments back to me of the nature of "Could you please provide evidence for your claim?" and post comments of a similar nature to other participants here. It's important to never downmod (and upmod) based on whether or not you agree with the subject! The founder of the site, pg, has expressed disagreement with this idea in a public comment, although I don't have the reference at hand. Sometimes downmodding to show factual disagreement is the most efficient treatment for a comment that mostly expresses a wrong opinion with little sign that the commenter will be willing to bring forth evidence, or with an existing reply-to-reply comment showing that the commenter doesn't think evidence is an issue he should concern himself with.
- russell 17y ago
  There is very little thanking on HN. I like that compared to sites where the first 10 comments are thanking the poster for posting. I use thanks sparingly, like the time when someone rose to my defense after an ad hominem attack.

dhimes 17y ago

Another thing to keep in mind is that while a remark like that may pass if it's one of only a couple on the screen, sometimes a very interesting discussion (or a few) does break out on what seems to be at first an innocuous post. When that happens, your comment can find itself all alone at the bottom and following a few interesting threads. Then it can take hits because of the glaring contrast.