3 ms·

Who is going to decide how many stories on a topic we get to have? Should there have been one Mt.Gox related submission? One Snowden related submission? Up to o

by staunch 12y ago

Who is going to decide how many stories on a topic we get to have? Should there have been one Mt.Gox related submission? One Snowden related submission? Up to one submission per day per topic? I'm not suggesting it's "good" I'm suggesting it's better than the alternative. Killing dupes when there is more than one active discussion is one thing. This submission was the only active discussion on this topic. Removing it is just editorial curation that is of no benefit to anyone at all.

dang 12y ago
Those are good questions and I'd be happy to discuss them, but you seem to be under the impression that HN didn't use to be intensively moderated. That model is wrong. HN was always intensively moderated, curated, or whatever one calls it. That's the only reason why you are able to write something like this: The fear that this would cause a topic to "dominate the site" has been proven false numerous times. That didn't prove itself false, nor did the community make it false; it was PG who made it false. He poured countless hours into managing the site and countless more into writing code to help manage it. That model hasn't changed. It's more transparent now, because users asked for it to be. Transparency has the side-effect of making it seem to some people like we've fundamentally altered HN when it doesn't work like they assumed it did.
- staunch 12y ago
  Few people know better what PG, yourself, and others have done for this site or appreciate it more than me. I've seen lots of threads get penalized or killed and reversed. I know it hasn't been perfect in the past either. I regret saying anything and I won't comment in the future. Thanks.
  - dang 12y ago
    Please don't regret saying anything and for heaven's sake please don't stop commenting! This stuff is messy, unobvious, and unsatisfying. I'm painfully aware that there's no way to make HN consistent, to satisfy everybody any of the time, or anybody all of the time. The least bad job is all we can strive for, and we can't do that without feedback. Also, sorry for the snippiness in my tone above. I don't always succeed in responding the way I want to.

by staunch 12y ago

dang 12y ago

Those are good questions and I'd be happy to discuss them, but you seem to be under the impression that HN didn't use to be intensively moderated. That model is wrong. HN was always intensively moderated, curated, or whatever one calls it. That's the only reason why you are able to write something like this: The fear that this would cause a topic to "dominate the site" has been proven false numerous times. That didn't prove itself false, nor did the community make it false; it was PG who made it false. He poured countless hours into managing the site and countless more into writing code to help manage it. That model hasn't changed. It's more transparent now, because users asked for it to be. Transparency has the side-effect of making it seem to some people like we've fundamentally altered HN when it doesn't work like they assumed it did.

staunch 12y ago
Few people know better what PG, yourself, and others have done for this site or appreciate it more than me. I've seen lots of threads get penalized or killed and reversed. I know it hasn't been perfect in the past either. I regret saying anything and I won't comment in the future. Thanks.
- dang 12y ago
  Please don't regret saying anything and for heaven's sake please don't stop commenting! This stuff is messy, unobvious, and unsatisfying. I'm painfully aware that there's no way to make HN consistent, to satisfy everybody any of the time, or anybody all of the time. The least bad job is all we can strive for, and we can't do that without feedback. Also, sorry for the snippiness in my tone above. I don't always succeed in responding the way I want to.