5 ms·

This is insanely disingenuous. User flags and the voting ring detector are part of HN's ranking algorithm, whether they're labeled as such in the code or not.

dang 12y ago
We must have a crossed signal here. Of course those are part of the ranking algorithm! My point is that except for the exceptions I mentioned, none of the code considers social issues. What part is disingenuous?
- mjg59 12y ago
  If social issues are more likely than the average story to trigger aspects of the ranking system that results in them disappearing, the ranking system is biased against social issues. The fact that it's also biased against various other topics is irrelevant to the point I was making - you've constructed a ranking system that makes it almost impossible to maintain visibility of stories about diversity. In an era where the lack of diversity in our industry is so extreme and stories about harassment so visible that the mainstream media have picked up on it, that seems like a problem.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    Given how often diversity stories are on the front page, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem getting such stories visibility. In fact, the top story all day long today has been a diversity story, with a massive number of comments on just about every possible aspect of the story.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    My guess is that I fall right alongside you in terms of the valence of my opinions about diversity, "meritocracy", and the working culture of the San Francisco Bay Area. I'd even hazard a guess that my level of militancy on those topics is similar to yours. I am a reliable flagger of diversity stories that I perceive as inviting flame wars --- even though I'm also a willing participant in those flamewars, as you can quickly find out from the search bar below. What I'd like more people to consider is that HN can't be all things to all people. I find the site personally interesting, have met several friends here, and have extracted considerable professional value from it. Those are all very important things to me. Meanwhile: there's a whole big wide Internet out there that can host discussions and debates on social issues of all stripes. If those debates, hosted here, are going to rip the site up (and evidence suggests they will): not worth it. There are people whose opinions I respect a great deal --- Maciej Ceglowski being a good example --- who strongly disagree with me on this point. Of course I might not be right about this. I'd just say, be careful about assuming that the bias is in favor of a status quo on the substantive issues. For a lot of us, this is a process issue.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  You said: "The Hacker News ranking algorithm does not penalize stories that address social issues." And then explained the observed effects as being from flags and vote ring detection. People flag stories that address social issues, thus, the ranking algorithm is penalizing stories that address social issues. That (the collective) you did not specifically intend this makes a nice case study in unintended consequences and/or the collision of technology and humanity, but doesn't change the point being made.
  - dang 12y ago
    By your logic, the software must also be biased against the things users downvote, since after all the code records the vote. Of course the algorithm penalizes (most) stories that users flag. But it has no knowledge of what those stories are about. If some topics get flagged more than others, that is a function not of the algorithm but of the inputs users give it. This seems so obvious that I fear this dispute is purely definitional.
    - nknighthb 12y ago
      ... Wow. Does it help if we change the word "algorithm" to "system"? Stories entering the HN system on certain subjects are more likely to be penalized by that system. Humans are an integral part of HN. HN would neither function nor exist without them. You cannot simply ignore them and pronounce the system unbiased. Does that make more sense to you? This is really surprising to me. I usually disagree with you on, well, everything, but you have not previously seemed like someone who suffers from this particular technologist disease of utterly missing the big picture because someone used a word that you define narrowly in a broader way.
      - SamReidHughes 12y ago
        Because clearly this dispute is caused by his inability to understand you, not by your inability to understand him.
        12y ago

dang 12y ago

We must have a crossed signal here. Of course those are part of the ranking algorithm! My point is that except for the exceptions I mentioned, none of the code considers social issues. What part is disingenuous?

mjg59 12y ago
If social issues are more likely than the average story to trigger aspects of the ranking system that results in them disappearing, the ranking system is biased against social issues. The fact that it's also biased against various other topics is irrelevant to the point I was making - you've constructed a ranking system that makes it almost impossible to maintain visibility of stories about diversity. In an era where the lack of diversity in our industry is so extreme and stories about harassment so visible that the mainstream media have picked up on it, that seems like a problem.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  Given how often diversity stories are on the front page, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem getting such stories visibility. In fact, the top story all day long today has been a diversity story, with a massive number of comments on just about every possible aspect of the story.
- tptacek 12y ago
  My guess is that I fall right alongside you in terms of the valence of my opinions about diversity, "meritocracy", and the working culture of the San Francisco Bay Area. I'd even hazard a guess that my level of militancy on those topics is similar to yours. I am a reliable flagger of diversity stories that I perceive as inviting flame wars --- even though I'm also a willing participant in those flamewars, as you can quickly find out from the search bar below. What I'd like more people to consider is that HN can't be all things to all people. I find the site personally interesting, have met several friends here, and have extracted considerable professional value from it. Those are all very important things to me. Meanwhile: there's a whole big wide Internet out there that can host discussions and debates on social issues of all stripes. If those debates, hosted here, are going to rip the site up (and evidence suggests they will): not worth it. There are people whose opinions I respect a great deal --- Maciej Ceglowski being a good example --- who strongly disagree with me on this point. Of course I might not be right about this. I'd just say, be careful about assuming that the bias is in favor of a status quo on the substantive issues. For a lot of us, this is a process issue.
nknighthb 12y ago
You said: "The Hacker News ranking algorithm does not penalize stories that address social issues." And then explained the observed effects as being from flags and vote ring detection. People flag stories that address social issues, thus, the ranking algorithm is penalizing stories that address social issues. That (the collective) you did not specifically intend this makes a nice case study in unintended consequences and/or the collision of technology and humanity, but doesn't change the point being made.
- dang 12y ago
  By your logic, the software must also be biased against the things users downvote, since after all the code records the vote. Of course the algorithm penalizes (most) stories that users flag. But it has no knowledge of what those stories are about. If some topics get flagged more than others, that is a function not of the algorithm but of the inputs users give it. This seems so obvious that I fear this dispute is purely definitional.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    ... Wow. Does it help if we change the word "algorithm" to "system"? Stories entering the HN system on certain subjects are more likely to be penalized by that system. Humans are an integral part of HN. HN would neither function nor exist without them. You cannot simply ignore them and pronounce the system unbiased. Does that make more sense to you? This is really surprising to me. I usually disagree with you on, well, everything, but you have not previously seemed like someone who suffers from this particular technologist disease of utterly missing the big picture because someone used a word that you define narrowly in a broader way.
    - SamReidHughes 12y ago
      Because clearly this dispute is caused by his inability to understand you, not by your inability to understand him.
      - 12y ago