It was both widely criticized and widely supported. The data suggested more HN readers liked it than disliked it.
It was both widely criticized and widely supported. The data suggested more HN readers liked it than disliked it.
The ban was very welcome imho, we could all use that break following the election. But I personally only liked it because it was temporary. I'd feel very differently had it been permanent or long term.
Can you elaborate on the downsides?
Another is that the political flamewarring didn't diminish, but merely shifted to arguing about site policy and the experiment. Indeed, it probably ticked up rather than down.
Another is that many good stories that were clearly on-topic for HN but also had political aspects were excluded, making the front page worse not better.
The bottom line is we can't run an experiment like this without changing the site itself in unintended ways. HN is a complex system that way. 'Do no harm' is at the top of our list, and we learned that there's a big leap in potential harm when you go from a 1-2 day timeframe to a week. So I'm sure we were right to end the experiment early; my internal "are things ok" geiger counter was bleeping like crazy at that point.