3 ms·
> 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 h
by 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