3 ms·

I'm not against anything that continues to change how and why things are placed on the front page in an effort to increase quality. But without transparency ho

by buro9 13y ago

I'm not against anything that continues to change how and why things are placed on the front page in an effort to increase quality. But without transparency how are people going to learn from it and adapt (in what they upvote, submit, etc). If it happens silently, then those who comment on things as well as those who submit things are going to be left wondering why. You may consider this a positive on the line that "They're creating the wrong type of content", but not all of the content should be removed, sometimes the discussions are insightful and valuable even when the story itself wasn't.

tptacek 13y ago
Moderation on HN is more transparent now than it has ever been.
- selmnoo 13y ago
  Not really. Rankbanning is still happening (from what I hear and observe from several high-profile HN users), slowbanning is still happening, hellbanning is still happening. That would all be fine, but this is increasingly happening with people who are not trolls. For example, jacquesm can't submit articles... we both know he's not a troll, and has no bad intentions, yet he's always getting dinged by HN.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    No part of your comment responds to mine. Moderation under Paul Graham was entirely, completely, absolutely opaque. Nobody ever said hellbanning would go away, or that users wouldn't lose privileges. If people believe themselves to be "rankbanned" or "slowbanned", they can mail hn@ycombinator.com and be virtually assured that they'll get a personal, candid answer from the mod squad about what's going on. That's not as gratifying as snarking about it in public, though.
    - selmnoo 13y ago
      > Moderation under Paul Graham was entirely, completely, absolutely opaque. That is not correct. Fairly often pg responded to questions about whether a post was getting flagged. Anyway, you're right that my comment wasn't really related to your original comment. I guess just the defensive tone of your comment set me off, because I keep seeing rampant censorship on HN, perhaps even more than before, and that irks me. > they can mail hn@ycombinator.com and be virtually assured that they'll get a personal, candid answer from the mod squad about what's going on. That's not as gratifying as snarking about it in public, though. So, the problem with jacquesm -- who has been publicly complaining about his inability to submit articles for a long time now, is that he just never emailed hn@ycombinator? That is a _necessary_ step to regain the ability to make submissions? I think in a healthy community it would not have been. I've known jacquesm for a long time now, he's a genuinely nice guy who's always willing to spare time to give tips on everything from programming to startups, he should not have had his submitting privileges revoked in the first place.
      - tptacek 13y ago
        I see Daniel and Nick working their assess off to improve quality on the site, and I see quality actually improving. Whatever they're doing, it's working, and I appreciate it. I think it's totally inappropriate for me to discuss 'jacquesm, or really most other HN commenters, with random people on HN.

by buro9 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

Moderation on HN is more transparent now than it has ever been.

selmnoo 13y ago
Not really. Rankbanning is still happening (from what I hear and observe from several high-profile HN users), slowbanning is still happening, hellbanning is still happening. That would all be fine, but this is increasingly happening with people who are not trolls. For example, jacquesm can't submit articles... we both know he's not a troll, and has no bad intentions, yet he's always getting dinged by HN.
- tptacek 13y ago
  No part of your comment responds to mine. Moderation under Paul Graham was entirely, completely, absolutely opaque. Nobody ever said hellbanning would go away, or that users wouldn't lose privileges. If people believe themselves to be "rankbanned" or "slowbanned", they can mail hn@ycombinator.com and be virtually assured that they'll get a personal, candid answer from the mod squad about what's going on. That's not as gratifying as snarking about it in public, though.
  - selmnoo 13y ago
    > Moderation under Paul Graham was entirely, completely, absolutely opaque. That is not correct. Fairly often pg responded to questions about whether a post was getting flagged. Anyway, you're right that my comment wasn't really related to your original comment. I guess just the defensive tone of your comment set me off, because I keep seeing rampant censorship on HN, perhaps even more than before, and that irks me. > they can mail hn@ycombinator.com and be virtually assured that they'll get a personal, candid answer from the mod squad about what's going on. That's not as gratifying as snarking about it in public, though. So, the problem with jacquesm -- who has been publicly complaining about his inability to submit articles for a long time now, is that he just never emailed hn@ycombinator? That is a _necessary_ step to regain the ability to make submissions? I think in a healthy community it would not have been. I've known jacquesm for a long time now, he's a genuinely nice guy who's always willing to spare time to give tips on everything from programming to startups, he should not have had his submitting privileges revoked in the first place.
    - tptacek 13y ago
      I see Daniel and Nick working their assess off to improve quality on the site, and I see quality actually improving. Whatever they're doing, it's working, and I appreciate it. I think it's totally inappropriate for me to discuss 'jacquesm, or really most other HN commenters, with random people on HN.