6 ms·

"They are excellent articles, and I feel bad about doing so." Then you're part of the problem! The attitude is, if it doesn't fit the "Hacker News" relevancy s

by jd0 13y ago

"They are excellent articles, and I feel bad about doing so." Then you're part of the problem! The attitude is, if it doesn't fit the "Hacker News" relevancy stereotype then flag away. Have you not wondered or even humbled yourself to consider that perhaps your own view is more short-sighted than the posters? I guess flagging in general takes an error ratio into account but it's my experience that it's far too swift here on HN, meaning more weight is given to the flaggers than the posters. Honestly though, thank-you for asking and posting your actions here for discussion! That, in my opinion, is a lot better than the countless silent flaggers everywhere flags exist.

bmelton 13y ago
I think that each of us should ask ourselves the question, "Is this topic good for HN" more often. The commentary on the linked threads is, arguably, low quality discussion, and tends to bring out the worst in us -- self-included. Any topic that might encourage commentary like "Democrats shouldn't be allowed to vote" or "Republicans are racists" should be looked at with skepticism, as even the best meaning of us is subject to responding fueled by emotion. There are times when political discussions on HN are extremely relevant to the HN community. There are times when they are not. Each of us imposes different value judgements as to which are which, but if we each choose to upvote them slightly less, and flag them more aggressively where we find them inappropriate, then perhaps we could tip the scales in favor of less of them appearing on HN, which I think is the preferable alternative to more.
nkurz 13y ago
Have you not wondered or even humbled yourself to consider that perhaps your own view is more short-sighted than the posters? Yes, I question myself often. The purpose of this post was to get some outside perspective, and start a discussion of how best to keep this a site for high quality discussion. And I don't blame the posters: I'm sure I've posted things that others find off-topic. On the flip-side, presuming you like HN as it is, I'd ask whether you've considered that its current state is not the result a "natural evolution", rather the conscious curation of numerous previous parties. That is, if we are where we are due to frequent flagging, what are the consequences of stopping?

by jd0 13y ago

bmelton 13y ago

I think that each of us should ask ourselves the question, "Is this topic good for HN" more often. The commentary on the linked threads is, arguably, low quality discussion, and tends to bring out the worst in us -- self-included. Any topic that might encourage commentary like "Democrats shouldn't be allowed to vote" or "Republicans are racists" should be looked at with skepticism, as even the best meaning of us is subject to responding fueled by emotion. There are times when political discussions on HN are extremely relevant to the HN community. There are times when they are not. Each of us imposes different value judgements as to which are which, but if we each choose to upvote them slightly less, and flag them more aggressively where we find them inappropriate, then perhaps we could tip the scales in favor of less of them appearing on HN, which I think is the preferable alternative to more.

nkurz 13y ago

Have you not wondered or even humbled yourself to consider that perhaps your own view is more short-sighted than the posters? Yes, I question myself often. The purpose of this post was to get some outside perspective, and start a discussion of how best to keep this a site for high quality discussion. And I don't blame the posters: I'm sure I've posted things that others find off-topic. On the flip-side, presuming you like HN as it is, I'd ask whether you've considered that its current state is not the result a "natural evolution", rather the conscious curation of numerous previous parties. That is, if we are where we are due to frequent flagging, what are the consequences of stopping?