4 ms·

I believe a certain segment of the community has decided to "purge" another segment of the community from existence because their articles (the _why ones I thin

I believe a certain segment of the community has decided to "purge" another segment of the community from existence because their articles (the _why ones I think) are "not relevant". Why this group can't figure out to use the flag button is beyond me. The symptom is the Erlang abundance.

nostrademons 17y ago
I don't see it like that at all... I see it more that the _why articles had their run, Erlang is having its run now, and in a day or two, something else will capture the HN fancy. There've been long runs of related topics on HN before. Erlang is a bit of an in-joke on HN because there was a similar run last March. It's no worse than the "Paul Graham Ate Breakfast" article that got several hundred points a couple years ago.
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  Aside from yourself and a few other notables, the Erlang explosion has it source with new users: under 500 karma. This is not the established community; this is a new segment of users that - with due respect - has no business telling the rest of us what does or doesn't qualify for a quality article. When they can use the flag button, they can feel free to contribute. _why articles had their run, Erlang is having its run now, and in a day or two, something else will capture the HN fancy Um, no. And you know this, don't you. I was no fan of any of the _why articles, in fact I think I only up-voted 1. The Erlang submissions are a direct intent to flood the site with seemingly "worthy" articles in an attempt to drown out other users. It's an attack by one clique against another, and it's something that I would think wouldn't have a place here on this website. It's no worse than the "Paul Graham Ate Breakfast" article Except that that article was 1) a single article 2) making the exact opposite argument that you're making.
  - gruseom 17y ago
    I posted one of the Erlang things (the second, I believe). Mind you, I certainly wouldn't have done that had there been 13 or even 5 up there already (and my post actually was of something new). Anyway, I think you're making a mistake to personify this into a "segment of users" trying to tell the rest what to do. My guess it was a lot more random than that. The real lesson of HN, and the thing that prevents events like this from knocking it off the rails, is its aggressive but unobtrusive moderation. When chaotic stuff happens that gets out of control, it gets corrected. This is also the answer to your human-nature-based critique of the community (i.e. left to its own devices, it would degrade in the way you describe, but it isn't left to its own devices). Edit: now that I think of it, maybe HN is kind of an instance of the "libertarian paternalism" that's recently become popular in policy thinking (as in the book Nudge).

nostrademons 17y ago

I don't see it like that at all... I see it more that the _why articles had their run, Erlang is having its run now, and in a day or two, something else will capture the HN fancy. There've been long runs of related topics on HN before. Erlang is a bit of an in-joke on HN because there was a similar run last March. It's no worse than the "Paul Graham Ate Breakfast" article that got several hundred points a couple years ago.

run4yourlives 17y ago
Aside from yourself and a few other notables, the Erlang explosion has it source with new users: under 500 karma. This is not the established community; this is a new segment of users that - with due respect - has no business telling the rest of us what does or doesn't qualify for a quality article. When they can use the flag button, they can feel free to contribute. _why articles had their run, Erlang is having its run now, and in a day or two, something else will capture the HN fancy Um, no. And you know this, don't you. I was no fan of any of the _why articles, in fact I think I only up-voted 1. The Erlang submissions are a direct intent to flood the site with seemingly "worthy" articles in an attempt to drown out other users. It's an attack by one clique against another, and it's something that I would think wouldn't have a place here on this website. It's no worse than the "Paul Graham Ate Breakfast" article Except that that article was 1) a single article 2) making the exact opposite argument that you're making.
- gruseom 17y ago
  I posted one of the Erlang things (the second, I believe). Mind you, I certainly wouldn't have done that had there been 13 or even 5 up there already (and my post actually was of something new). Anyway, I think you're making a mistake to personify this into a "segment of users" trying to tell the rest what to do. My guess it was a lot more random than that. The real lesson of HN, and the thing that prevents events like this from knocking it off the rails, is its aggressive but unobtrusive moderation. When chaotic stuff happens that gets out of control, it gets corrected. This is also the answer to your human-nature-based critique of the community (i.e. left to its own devices, it would degrade in the way you describe, but it isn't left to its own devices). Edit: now that I think of it, maybe HN is kind of an instance of the "libertarian paternalism" that's recently become popular in policy thinking (as in the book Nudge).