4 ms·
Ask HN: Reverse asymmetry to combat dismissive comments on HN?
Dismissive comments about new things bother me partly because there's an asymmetry that seems unfair. It's so risky to create something new, and so easy to dismiss it. At their worst, the people making such comments are like schoolyard bullies picking on someone who tries to do something different. -- pg (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5364566)
It seems to me that people who have put made something on their own, put themselves out there, are less dismissive in comments. That would partly explain why HN in its first year was less mean - the people participating were more likely to be makers and founders rather than trolls and armchair opinionators.
Would it be possible to create a sort of reverse asymmetry, a soft filter, where people have to show "proof of work" in order to have their comments count or rank higher?
The point isn't to create a kind of expert stamp, but more about showcasing experience and empathy with the creative and difficult aspects of making something new.
What are your thoughts, HN? Is something like this possible? Is it desirable?
- bushido 13y ago> Is it desirable? No. > Is something like this possible? Maybe. > where people have to show "proof of work" in order to have their comments count or rank higher? This would be counter-productive. You're asking whether its a good idea to remove a persons choice to choose what opinion they should believe in. It's true that it's easier to criticize an idea when you are not personally involved, but to reduce any thoughts you don't agree with to "trolls and armchair opinionators" is incorrect. There is simply no way to determine if the person giving advise is an expert in that domain, its one of the advantages of anonymity. Furthermore, anonymity allows one to step out of the situation and see the bigger picture. For example if a founder was doing something that in an extreme situation could expose users to unforeseeable risks (unforeseeable for the founder), which often happens in the hopes of huge monetary gains. Also, we already have an option to up/down vote, and if someone says something that is too extreme, not-credible or troll-like we the HN users can vote it down into oblivion. No reason to deliberately promote cognitive dissonance.
- EGreg 13y agoThere is simply no way to determine if the person giving advise is an expert in that domain, its one of the advantages of anonymity. Anonymity does not preclude reputations over time.
- bushido 13y ago> Anonymity does not preclude reputations over time. That's ture. I wasn't discounting that. Simply stating that that even if a person is not an active participant, just because they have strong opinions on a topic is not sufficient reason to call these contributors "trolls and armchair opinionators" as the OP stated.
- reeses 13y agoWhat do you want this site to be? Is the site you want one that is supportive of new ventures? Straw men aside, civil and humane responses will encourage more of the great "look what I'm building," posts and culture that many people miss from the old HN. There's so much thoughtless "no one wants that" type feedback that could be put into more constructive advice or elicitation of marketability.
- bushido 13y ago> Is the site you want one that is supportive of new ventures? How does one say no to that? But, step back and consider this. Is support for the heck of support really supportive? Additionally, I believe the tech community, is the single largest group of evangelists that have benefited the world in the last decade or two. They are also the usual intended users for most of these ventures, and their adoption could make or break most new products. Often, posters of these alleged ventures do not want to listen to users, wherein the problem arises. Quote for this discussion would be: "The day we stop criticizing, will be the day we stop caring." Most criticism is intended to be positive, most people also don't know how to criticize, those who know how to criticize positively also falter in some situations. There are of course trolls too, would you really sacrifice everyone else for them? edit: spelling
- codex 13y agoI think that many comments are negative because most new things fail--especially in software and the Internet, where only the best survive. Is it doing anyone a service to pretend otherwise?
- pvnick 13y agoI second this, if not this specific solution then at least the goal of being proactive about the problem. There are so many talented people that want to make cool stuff and improve the world around them in their own way, but the overall negativity here has become so overwhelming it's crazy. Especially in Show HN threads (the myth.io thread the other day was embarassing). It teaches creators and innovators that they're not welcome here. That we reject them and their hard work. Sooner or later there won't be any of them left. It'll just be a bunch of idiots clamoring over each other to determine who's the smartest. It's like the old expression, Those who can, do. Those who can't just sit around and bitch about those who can Edit: Great, flagged off the front page. Way to go guys!
- bushido 13y ago> Edit: Great, flagged off the front page. Way to go guys! Not so much flagged off the front page, as HN voting against the idea, or voting to discuss other news at this relative point of time. Most likely the latter.
- sparkie 13y agoAside from obvious trolls, I can't see where this alleged negativity is on HN. People are critical, but criticism is necessary for debate, improvement, and freethought. Everybody should be free to express their thoughts, as long as they're well meant and not obvious, unreasonable attacks. When we start considering censoring people who disagree with us, we're only inflicting cognitive biases upon ourselves. We resort to groupthink, people thinking one thing but expressing another in order to prevent discord. And I don't see how this environment is unfriendly to creators. If anything, people giving honest opinions about something without fear of reprisal from their peers gives the creator the tools to reflect upon their own judgements. Without it, they could be digging themselves into deeper holes with confirmation bias. If anything, it presents a creator with a good opportunity to retort misconceptions about their creation by replying to those critical comments. There are of course, creators who use HN for marketing their products, and marketing is often dishonest or not completely honest. It should be expected that when pitching a product to a technically competent crowd, you should cut the bullshit and let the product speak for itself. It's my hope that marketers should only be welcome here if they're honest, and having freedom of expression in comments gives us the opportunity to make judgements without investigating everything ourselves. It's "Hacker News", not "Startup News". I'm glad it's not Techcrunch. The main reason I visit and comment on here is because it's nice to see variety of opinion from mostly open-minded and intelligent people. I can ignore the comments I dislike or disagree with. I don't care whether or not people agree with what I say either, because they can make their own judgements. I'm sure creators can learn to do the same. Sieve through the bullshit, but don't succumb to reactance when their ideas are judged.
- krapp 13y agoI believe the premise (that provable "work" by posters is a sign of sincerity or, inversely, lack of provable work is an indication of being a troll) is falsifiable enough that it renders an engineered solution impossible. HN already has a karma score, and users can post their credentials, etc. in their profile - isn't this essentially already "proof of work?" in the sense OP describes? And yet, despite features already being in place which attempt to reinforce positive and constructive, there's nothing at all stopping high-karma posters with credentials from dismissing or criticizing anything they like. The asymmetry that pg describes hasn't been stopped because it can't be stopped. It can be policed, but not predetermined. A better solution, I think, is to be more positive and to encourage people to put more thought into their comments. Edit: I suppose this is a somewhat dismissive comment. What "proof of work" would I have needed here for my opinion to be credible? I've got a github account and i've been paid for code but I still think this is an intractable idea.
- sharemywin 13y agoI think the reason most large corporations fail is because they turn into self-diluted echo chambers. So, what if the neg comments came from a high profile blogger, you going to close up shop? Most of the time when I post I get nothing, silence is way worst than "I don't get your idea". I'm not saying trolls are good, but if your doing some kind of market research you need more bad feedback than good. so you can fix things.