3 ms·
IIRC PG doesn't want to implement that because the quality of the front-page would presumably diminish if people could selectively ignore sources of low quality
by Hexstream 17y ago
IIRC PG doesn't want to implement that because the quality of the front-page would presumably diminish if people could selectively ignore sources of low quality for themselves.
- quellhorst 17y agoHow do you explain not being about to down-vote submissions?
- joecode 17y agoYou know, it occurred to me if you're committed, you could just vote up all the other stories. Same effect. There's flagging, too, of course.
- pg 17y agohttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=623583 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=623583
- zimbabwe 17y agoWhy do you think selective filtering would ruin the front page? It's the equivalent of "don't click on Techcrunch articles", but it makes it much easier and removes the visual nag. (For that matter, has there ever been a social news site whose primary method of filtering links was letting each individual user ignore things? It might be an interesting way to maintain a community.)
- pg 17y agoFor the same reason cities suffer when people flee to the suburbs. If individuals can personally opt out of public problems, they have no incentive to work to solve them. In this case by flagging offtopic posts and criticizing mistaken ones in the comments.
- zimbabwe 17y agoYou're equating a physical reality with a virtual one. The whole of the Internet is about filtration. There's no "real" location that grows worse or that requires effort. Besides, a per-site filter won't stop offtopic posts from being flagged, or debates from starting. They'll only allow certain people to ignore certain posts, which those people want to do anyway. I for one wouldn't block TechCrunch, and I'm certain many more would keep reading it as well.