10 ms·

I asked a very similar question of dang [1] about two months ago when he decided to change an article's URL to one I added to the comments [2]. His response to

I asked a very similar question of dang [1] about two months ago when he decided to change an article's URL to one I added to the comments [2]. His response to me (w/ irrelevant stuff redacted): The short answer is that HN's goal is quality, so that's what we optimize for. Optimizing means trading other things away. One thing we're willing to trade away–if it's a clear win for quality–is fidelity to the original submission. HN's focus should always be on the content, and the details of the original submission are of little interest compared to the subject at hand. HN isn't a purist's kind of place. Our goal to make the front page and the threads as interesting and substantive as possible. We change a lot of things to serve that principle. If we knew how to serve it better, we'd happily break more crockery to do so. Someone (perhaps a purist!) will object that terms like "quality", "interesting", and "substantive" have no precise definitions and are in the eye of the beholder. True, but (a) they're not arbitrary either, (b) the alternatives suck, and (c) someone has to make the calls. We don't get them all right, but we do try hard to correct mistakes, and I'll defend the principle any day. 1: dang = Daniel Gackle, HN's moderator. http://blog.ycombinator.com/meet-the-people-taking-over-hacker-news http://blog.ycombinator.com/meet-the-people-taking-over-hack... 2: Original thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7747401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7747401

karterk 12y ago
I simply don't like the fact that someone can change a link that I submitted to something else. Moderators have the right to kill a story or ban a user for valid reasons, but changing a link to point to another completely different article is just being pedantic and definitely crosses the line. We might as well then just post topics, and let the mods choose the best story for that topic.
- benjamincburns 12y ago
  I agree that mods changing submissions is a little like putting words in the original submitter's mouth, but if the practice is well known I don't think there's much harm in it. Like I hinted at in the other thread, and as dang seems to confirm, it's an issue of purism vs pragmatism.
  - S4M 12y ago
    Then there should be a way to say: <a href={{new_link}}>new title</a> [changed from <a href={{old_link}}>old title</a>]
  - mfisher87 12y ago
    I don't think the practice is well known. I've been on HN for a year or something, and have seen reference to the practice in comments a maximum of 5 times. And I think I tend to read pretty deeply.
    - deft 12y ago
      Since Dang has taken over as the main moderator and been more public about it, he's announced doing it more times than that.
- peteretep 12y ago
  > I simply don't like the fact that someone can change a > link that I submitted to something else http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_voting
  - phaemon 12y ago
    Nothing would ever be changed for the better if people simply walked away from problems, rather than discussing them in an attempt to find a solution.
    - peteretep 12y ago
      Your perspective is wrong. The important thing is not that HN gets "better" according to your preferences (which appear to differ from those of the moderators), but that you have a community that more suits your preferences. In a similar vein, you can complain as much as you like that company x's smartphone doesn't have the features you think are important, or, better, you can buy company y's smartphone that does.
  - levosmetalo 12y ago
    so, instead of trying to make hn better, you suggest that whoever does not agree with something here should just silently walk away? if everyone acted like that what a happy society we would have been living in.
    - Killswitch 12y ago
      Make our own HN! Quick someone register nothn.io!
    - Pacabel 12y ago
      Let's be honest, this website isn't a democracy or a republic or anything like that, even if there is "voting" on submissions and comments. Average users really have no say while they're here. There's no real ability to control or even influence how this site is operated. Leaving, or choosing not to actively participate any longer, probably does have the biggest impact of all of the options available to a user. Discussion forums need participants, and participants leaving over time can have a huge impact. Slashdot is a good example of this. Various site owners/operators started changing things in ways that users did not like. Many users spoke out, but they were ignored. In many cases, they were subjected to downmodding, especially those who spoke out against bad UI changes or the recent beta site. Seeing that discussing the problems had no impact on the situation, they left. Now Slashdot is a wasteland compared to what it once was, a decade or so ago. The decline in participation may be gradual, but it's very real, and its impact is significant.
- hnha 12y ago
  Do people pay attention to who submits items? I never do. Maybe the display of the submitter could be removed without any loss.
  - clarky07 12y ago
    Yes they do. Some people can get to front page at will. Now, whether that's good or not is a different discussion, but people trust their judgement so they get more weight.
  - mbrutsch 12y ago
    > Do people pay attention to who submits items? Would we be having this conversation if they didn't?
    - gravedave 12y ago
      I think he primarily referred to other readers, this topic was posted by a submitter.
  - chrisBob 12y ago
    I don't usually pay any attention to who submitted something, and one of the biggest issues I see with HN is the imbalance in points between someone who submits an article and someone who has valuable input in the discussion. Half of my karma is from 2 submissions but I think a good comment is much more valuable that being the first person to submit a link.
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  What you fail to articulate is how anybody benefits from seeing the old URL.
  - Pacabel 12y ago
    It's a problem when there is discussion about a submission, then the URL is changed to a somewhat different article, and the existing discussion no longer makes as much sense. Ripping away the original context unexpectedly is the problem. So making the original context more accessible is one good solution to this problem.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      I've seen that happen, and you'll never believe what happens next: The people on the thread, being adults, write a couple sentences about how the story there were commenting on used to say something else. For many of us, this infinitesimal inconvenience is more than offset by the improved experience of not clicking through blogspam to get to the right sources. Nine times out of ten, when this happens, the original submission is awful compared to the one we end up with.
jasonlfunk 12y ago
Maybe there should be some indication on the post that the article/title was changed so the edits aren't attributed to the original submitter. This would at least resolve that confusion. It seems like the current model tries to be like SlashDot (where everything curated) but retains the appearance of user-driven content by keeping it's curation hidden.
- curtis 12y ago
  When an article and/or title is changed, I'd like to see a comment with the original title and a link to the original article. I should note that dang often adds a comment that a change occurred -- which I appreciate -- but I'd like to see a little more context.
- Pacabel 12y ago
  The modified/edited/curated title and/or URL could always be shown underneath or beside the original title and URL, which remain unchanged.
- reuwsaat 12y ago
  Or, how about "forking" posts. If the content is truly of higher quality, then the fork will be up-voted more from that point on. If not, then the original post will be. And why must the article be attributed to only one person. Karma could be shared by some mechanism if a forked post gits [sic] more up-votes. I think "hellbanning" should also be a part of this conversation. The combination of mods non-transparent editing practices and hellbanning makes an extremely strong case for categorizing the mod system as a form of censorship. HN is a private website. So, I fully believe that HN should be allowed to censor if it would like to. I certainly at times censor my friends when they post to my facebook wall. But my facebook wall isn't a community. And it doesn't purport to provide news. Thus, I believe HN should be held to a higher standard.
  - Pacabel 12y ago
    I wonder why the parent comment was voted down. I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, it has some perfectly reasonable ideas and suggestions. I find it odd that people within the discussion here can suggest that bad flagging or bad voting isn't an issue, when we have a perfect example of it involving what's currently the 7th comment from the top.
atarian 12y ago
>One thing we're willing to trade away–if it's a clear win for quality–is fidelity to the original submission. What worries me about this is how bias comes into play. For example, what if a mod thought a pro-Republican view on an issue had higher fidelity than a neutral view? Sure it might not always be that blatant or obvious, but this is an area I'd think twice about editing so the stories don't reflect what you think is ideal.
levosmetalo 12y ago
I would rather call it "censorship" and "impersonation" instead of "quality". Sorry, if you (dang or whoever) edit whatever I put there, just remove my name from there, so that people know who write the new content.
- mikepurvis 12y ago
  Agree. It wouldn't be hard for it have a little "originally" link/flag that pops up what was actually submitted prior to the mods fiddling with it. The attribution could also be changed from "username" to "modname via username", providing additional clarification about where it came from.
gravedave 12y ago
Every site has a duty to respect its users, especially when their content is the driving force of the site, this shouldn't be an optional thing at the whims of some "quality optimisation expert". Moderation should be about filtering the toxic users, not about getting in the way of the legitimate ones.

karterk 12y ago

I simply don't like the fact that someone can change a link that I submitted to something else. Moderators have the right to kill a story or ban a user for valid reasons, but changing a link to point to another completely different article is just being pedantic and definitely crosses the line. We might as well then just post topics, and let the mods choose the best story for that topic.

benjamincburns 12y ago
I agree that mods changing submissions is a little like putting words in the original submitter's mouth, but if the practice is well known I don't think there's much harm in it. Like I hinted at in the other thread, and as dang seems to confirm, it's an issue of purism vs pragmatism.
- S4M 12y ago
  Then there should be a way to say: <a href={{new_link}}>new title</a> [changed from <a href={{old_link}}>old title</a>]
- mfisher87 12y ago
  I don't think the practice is well known. I've been on HN for a year or something, and have seen reference to the practice in comments a maximum of 5 times. And I think I tend to read pretty deeply.
  - deft 12y ago
    Since Dang has taken over as the main moderator and been more public about it, he's announced doing it more times than that.
peteretep 12y ago
> I simply don't like the fact that someone can change a > link that I submitted to something else http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_voting
- phaemon 12y ago
  Nothing would ever be changed for the better if people simply walked away from problems, rather than discussing them in an attempt to find a solution.
  - peteretep 12y ago
    Your perspective is wrong. The important thing is not that HN gets "better" according to your preferences (which appear to differ from those of the moderators), but that you have a community that more suits your preferences. In a similar vein, you can complain as much as you like that company x's smartphone doesn't have the features you think are important, or, better, you can buy company y's smartphone that does.
- levosmetalo 12y ago
  so, instead of trying to make hn better, you suggest that whoever does not agree with something here should just silently walk away? if everyone acted like that what a happy society we would have been living in.
  - Killswitch 12y ago
    Make our own HN! Quick someone register nothn.io!
  - Pacabel 12y ago
    Let's be honest, this website isn't a democracy or a republic or anything like that, even if there is "voting" on submissions and comments. Average users really have no say while they're here. There's no real ability to control or even influence how this site is operated. Leaving, or choosing not to actively participate any longer, probably does have the biggest impact of all of the options available to a user. Discussion forums need participants, and participants leaving over time can have a huge impact. Slashdot is a good example of this. Various site owners/operators started changing things in ways that users did not like. Many users spoke out, but they were ignored. In many cases, they were subjected to downmodding, especially those who spoke out against bad UI changes or the recent beta site. Seeing that discussing the problems had no impact on the situation, they left. Now Slashdot is a wasteland compared to what it once was, a decade or so ago. The decline in participation may be gradual, but it's very real, and its impact is significant.
hnha 12y ago
Do people pay attention to who submits items? I never do. Maybe the display of the submitter could be removed without any loss.
- clarky07 12y ago
  Yes they do. Some people can get to front page at will. Now, whether that's good or not is a different discussion, but people trust their judgement so they get more weight.
- mbrutsch 12y ago
  > Do people pay attention to who submits items? Would we be having this conversation if they didn't?
  - gravedave 12y ago
    I think he primarily referred to other readers, this topic was posted by a submitter.
- chrisBob 12y ago
  I don't usually pay any attention to who submitted something, and one of the biggest issues I see with HN is the imbalance in points between someone who submits an article and someone who has valuable input in the discussion. Half of my karma is from 2 submissions but I think a good comment is much more valuable that being the first person to submit a link.
SamReidHughes 12y ago
What you fail to articulate is how anybody benefits from seeing the old URL.
- Pacabel 12y ago
  It's a problem when there is discussion about a submission, then the URL is changed to a somewhat different article, and the existing discussion no longer makes as much sense. Ripping away the original context unexpectedly is the problem. So making the original context more accessible is one good solution to this problem.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    I've seen that happen, and you'll never believe what happens next: The people on the thread, being adults, write a couple sentences about how the story there were commenting on used to say something else. For many of us, this infinitesimal inconvenience is more than offset by the improved experience of not clicking through blogspam to get to the right sources. Nine times out of ten, when this happens, the original submission is awful compared to the one we end up with.

jasonlfunk 12y ago

Maybe there should be some indication on the post that the article/title was changed so the edits aren't attributed to the original submitter. This would at least resolve that confusion. It seems like the current model tries to be like SlashDot (where everything curated) but retains the appearance of user-driven content by keeping it's curation hidden.

curtis 12y ago
When an article and/or title is changed, I'd like to see a comment with the original title and a link to the original article. I should note that dang often adds a comment that a change occurred -- which I appreciate -- but I'd like to see a little more context.
Pacabel 12y ago
The modified/edited/curated title and/or URL could always be shown underneath or beside the original title and URL, which remain unchanged.
reuwsaat 12y ago
Or, how about "forking" posts. If the content is truly of higher quality, then the fork will be up-voted more from that point on. If not, then the original post will be. And why must the article be attributed to only one person. Karma could be shared by some mechanism if a forked post gits [sic] more up-votes. I think "hellbanning" should also be a part of this conversation. The combination of mods non-transparent editing practices and hellbanning makes an extremely strong case for categorizing the mod system as a form of censorship. HN is a private website. So, I fully believe that HN should be allowed to censor if it would like to. I certainly at times censor my friends when they post to my facebook wall. But my facebook wall isn't a community. And it doesn't purport to provide news. Thus, I believe HN should be held to a higher standard.
- Pacabel 12y ago
  I wonder why the parent comment was voted down. I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, it has some perfectly reasonable ideas and suggestions. I find it odd that people within the discussion here can suggest that bad flagging or bad voting isn't an issue, when we have a perfect example of it involving what's currently the 7th comment from the top.

atarian 12y ago

>One thing we're willing to trade away–if it's a clear win for quality–is fidelity to the original submission. What worries me about this is how bias comes into play. For example, what if a mod thought a pro-Republican view on an issue had higher fidelity than a neutral view? Sure it might not always be that blatant or obvious, but this is an area I'd think twice about editing so the stories don't reflect what you think is ideal.

levosmetalo 12y ago

I would rather call it "censorship" and "impersonation" instead of "quality". Sorry, if you (dang or whoever) edit whatever I put there, just remove my name from there, so that people know who write the new content.

mikepurvis 12y ago
Agree. It wouldn't be hard for it have a little "originally" link/flag that pops up what was actually submitted prior to the mods fiddling with it. The attribution could also be changed from "username" to "modname via username", providing additional clarification about where it came from.

gravedave 12y ago

Every site has a duty to respect its users, especially when their content is the driving force of the site, this shouldn't be an optional thing at the whims of some "quality optimisation expert". Moderation should be about filtering the toxic users, not about getting in the way of the legitimate ones.