Moderators should in no way be able to bury posts or even nudge them downwards. This is a cowardly way to try to control discussion. If it isn't explicitly against the site rules, let the readers decide.
As user base grows, all platforms suffer from mean reversion or "Eternal September" where quality of the content reverses towards low quality issues. If you want to keep up the quality you need editorial staff. Call them curators, editors or moderators if you want.
What I would like to happen is HN editing being transparent. Show buried or nudged content differently so that those who submit can adapt.
Yes, likely >90% of the site is done through voting, but a significant amount of pruning and bumping clearly also occurs.
"Popular things go to the top" is a pretty good first approximation of the algorithm. You have things getting flagged to death for generating bad conversation/flamewars (kinda like parents telling kids to stop playing rough since people are getting hurt). There's the hiring posts. At least to me, it's always felt like moderation is happening at the margins.
People complaining now should find someone who's been on here for a long time and ask what it was like under Paul Graham. Hint: not better.
Please elaborate before being so dismissive--you know, like we used to do on old HN.
The difference between the site post-Dan and pre-Dan --- you know, the "old" HN vs. today --- is that you can repeatedly write unfounded accusations like that today and not have your account shadowbanned and all your comments rank-penalized, like they were when Paul Graham ran the site. We all accepted those arbitrary moderation decisions back then, when there was no pretense of fairness or equity in moderation. Now that we have it, we attack the people who spend their time assuring it by making preposterous comparisons to the "good old days".
I am not arguing dang is doing a bad job--I'm arguing that their job is done with an eye more towards keeping a community in line with YC interests than promoting pure free-speech or hacker culture.
That includes things like killing off certain contentious posts, removing grossly off-topic material, and a lot of other frankly decent moderation.
> Yes, your account has a penalty that accounts get when they post too many low-quality comments--specifically ones that are uncivil and/or unsubstantive and/or tediously argumentative.
That's how it was explained to me, by Dan. He didn't stop the practice, and I'd contend he's probably doubled down on it.
The entire second paragraph of the comment to which I replied is wrong. Your followup (which ascribes motive to me, something I note you've gone after others for doing in this thread) is also wrong. I'm not litigating anything. I'm pointing out that you're wrong. You're also forgiven for not being aware of this, given your typical comment quality and status.
I care much less than you do whether they’re “legitimate,” I assure you. You’re projecting not reading on me, to be perfectly honest. Why on earth would I litigate my account status with you, of all people? It’s amusing you think I need to be reminded that you’re the wrong person for that, because I already know that. To me, just to be direct about this, you represent among the worst of HN’s qualities as evidenced all over this thread.
You’re just wrong about HN changing. It hasn’t. Yeah, dang and sctb announce bans now. There’s more to it, and in my experience, many of those decisions are just as arbitrary as they were when pg ran this place.
Everything else is an uncivil sideshow you’re dragging me into. Endgame: you’ll remain you, I’m probably stacking up further penalization rising to it, and life will go on. How about sticking to the fact that you’re wrong instead of exploiting your status to be as uncivil as you are with no fear of the exact repercussions you claim have softened because you’re not exposed to them?
Because it seems like we have zero evidence either which way, and your account is seemingly always on the status quo side.
Myself, I see fuck all discussion on here any more that reminds me of old HN.
> We downweight posts in response to things that go against the site guidelines, such as when a submission is unsubstantive, baity or sensational.
So, this is what's happening already.
Would be nice if we could have a discussion on it instead of just saying it's impossible though - is this a community of hackers or just apologists?
I'm willing a optimize for precision over recall here.
Agreed. If you try to make something more prescriptive then you end up with a massive increase in bureaucracy as you try to categorise every kind of content and every type of way of presenting that content. Effectively you turn moderators into lawyers and judges.