Hacker News Reader

Comment by dang | Hacker News Reader

(Edit: I'm detaching this from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13101402 and marking it off-topic. That example wasn't a clear enough one to make the point about, because the commenter wasn't being snarky or doing anything particularly wrong. Maybe next time it comes up more clearly I'll try again.)

I know it's nitpicky, but please don't use quotation marks when you're not actually quoting someone, and especially not when putting words in someone's mouth for rhetorical effect. (That generally isn't a great thing to do either, but was harmless in this case because you did it to praise, not denounce.)

We ask this, partly because the internet is stateless and text fragments are prone to misinterpretation, but also because it's one of those things that subtly degrade substantive discussion.

View on HN

But... quote marks are grammatically correct. They're the only way to mention words and phrases you're not actually using them.

Yes, the things we write are subject to misinterpretation, particularly when stripped of the their context. But asking people to avoid correct use of punctuation isn't going to make that less likely. Quite the opposite, in fact.

It looks like what I posted might not have been clear. I mean: please don't use quotation marks to make it look like you're quoting someone when you're not really quoting them. In particular, please don't do that thing where people sarcastically put words in someone's mouth and then add quotation marks around those words to amplify the rhetorical effect.

Uses of quotation marks for quoting someone, or for doing something that doesn't look like quoting someone (e.g. "self-referentially") are fine.

This is how fictional dialogue is commonly written in English lit. I do not see what the original poster could be doing wrong by following commonly accepted grammar. Perhaps this is just hitting a pet peeve of yours.

Again, the quotation marks are fine, as long as you write carefully enough make it entirely clear that you're not quoting somebody on the thread. And if it's a pet peeve of his, it's one he inherited from the site --- it's a longstanding thing here.

In fictional dialogue the quotes are there to show what a character said, not what they didn't say—that would be confusing! As it is here.

Interesting, i can see where the risk of confusion is. But wondering how it could have been written for similar effect...

" For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally: well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom. "

Feels a bit confusing. Is there a better way?

Part of the confusion arises from use of the word "literally" in literally the opposite of its sense.

Actually you're making me think that I picked a bad example to plant a flag on. The general point, about not using quotation marks as a rhetorical device or snark weapon, is a good one: it really does subtly degrade online discourse. But the example doesn't show that as clearly as it might, and the commenter was being a good sport and didn't do anything wrong. Sorry!

This type of explanation and review is a great example of why I appreciate the manner and spirit of moderation on HN.

These quote marks were not semantically correct. It is not a point of grammar. The comment literally reads:

> the psychologist's advice is literally "[not a quote]"

When you put something in the form of a quotation, the accepted meaning is that it is a quotation. In this case it is, literally, not something the psychologist actually advised.

Not at all. When you put some words inside quotes, you're saying you want to talk about those words, without using them yourself. I can say, for example, that I've never heard anyone claim, "The sun is made of purple gumdrops," because that would be ridiculous. I know that the sun is actually made of hot gases, and you know that I know that.

The problem with SerLava's comment was that it put words in the author's mouth, not his punctuation.

That is why I said "in the form of a quotation" which includes mentioning the psychologist directly before introducing the quote. Roughly, the form of a quotation is an attribution, followed (or preceded) by a direct quotation enclosed in quotation marks, or by an indirect quotation without quotation marks.

The problem was the potential impression of putting words in the author's mouth, and punctuation was part of what created that impression.

In your example there is actually no need for the quotation marks, although they do not create any ambiguity because you didn't attribute the words to anyone in particular.

It seems like you mostly agree with me, but you have a funny way of showing it.

How else are you supposed to indicate that you're rephrasing something someone else said? It's generally pretty clear when something is an actual quote, and putting the quote in italics makes it very clear that it was not actually said.

Something like this, perhaps:

For the teens, the psychologist's advice is literally: Well, maybe don't be such a bitch in the first place, Mom.

"literally"?

"Essentially" might fit better. Fitting "distilled" in there might work too.

Literally has also been used for emphasis while not being literally true, since, I'm told, at least the period Shakespeare was slinging ink around.

While readable, it's roughly as unpleasant to read as not indicating that it's a rephrasing at all.

In prose, without quotation marks. I found it jarring the first time I got corrected for casually using quotation marks on HN (many years ago --- I think by Paul Graham!) and felt for sometime afterwards that it was evidence about how needlessly prickly the site is. But I'm now glad to have left the habit of using question marks rhetorically behind in pretty much all of my writing.

You can still use quotes if you really want to; you just have to write clearly that you aren't making a literal quotation --- to be clear that you're not putting words in someone else's mouth. But I find that it's rarely worth the effort to do so.

Who is this "we" you're asking on behalf of?

You realise dang helps run HN right?

Obviously he didn't, that is why he asked.

Fair point.

No, I had no idea. How would I have known that if he didn't say?

HN moderators. I realize that's not always clear, but something in me resists putting "mod" labels beside our usernames.

Even if it's sometimes confusing I think that's a subtle but powerful thing. Even when you're moderating you're not set apart from us and it feels more like a discussion and less adversarial. Not sure if that's what you intended but I appreciate it.

That's well put and expresses the feeling nicely. Thanks!

The long run plan is to set up the system (moderation, software, and community) so well that it regulates itself. In that case having 'mod' next to moderators' names would be a field of boliauns. http://zucchinigirl.tripod.com/faery/field.html

Vibrant communities need strong moderators and no technical system (code or otherwise) can replace them.

You should have. I inadvertently argued against your opinionated choice when it's completely your right to enforce such a thing as a moderator.

Yes, I realize it's confusing sometimes, especially to new users, who deserve better from HN.

But the minimalism and informality of this site is valuable too, no one's ever had 'mod' next to their name here, and it feels like it would break the spell or something.

If this fairly nonstandard usage rule is significant enough to reply to someone to correct them on it, shouldn't it be listed in the guidelines?

The parent's usage is very common, so it seems a bit harsh for a mod to call them out on it, even if fairly politely, when they are not clearly in violation of anything they have been told.

HN is a "common law" community. Not everything is written down in a single place; the rules evolve as they're refined and reinterpreted by the mods.

I wonder what the best example of a "civil law" community on the Internet would be --- a message board where everything you weren't supposed to do was spelled out completely.

Civil law doesn't mean that everything is spelled out in detail. Ambiguous and vague characterisations in legal definitions are simply necessary to make a legal system work.

I think the real difference is that in common law "some other judges ruled this way a decade ago" is persuasive, while under civil law it doesn't really hold much weight.

Interesting, I didn't know that was a standard! Thank you.

That is because it is not. If anything the opposite is actually standard.

Actually, if you read much about journalism, you will know that what is put in quotation marks and attributed to someone is to be taken rather seriously.

That's only true in journalism. Just because we link to news stories primarily doesn't mean this site has a journalistic flavor or should follow those conventions.

Attributing words to someone is something one should be cautious about, regardless of the context. It isn't a peculiarity of journalism.

I was responding to the idea that such a convention about quotation marks doesn't exist. It absolutely does. Journalism is the most familiar example, but academic writing, non-fiction books, and other contexts are held to the same standard.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com