Hacker News Reader

Comment by guardiangod | Hacker News Reader

Thank you for doing this. I thought i was stuck in a time loop aka Groundhog Day when I saw the thread in HN's front page, and my post was timestamped at 7 hours (instead of 2 days) ago.

I believe this is an important issue. Regardless of whether SO is right or not, they do owe their community (of which I am not a part of) an explanation. Unlike the Google's gender controversy, SO is mostly operated by unpaid volunteers. If you are a paid worker, your share of responsibility and the expectation from/to your company is very different from community driven projects such as SO.

tl:dr SO needs to be held to a higher standard than your usual commercial companies.

View on HN

(Yes, the software relativizes the timestamps on a thread while re-upping a submission; see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20169818. It's confusing but keeping the original timestamps is worse and we've yet to figure out a better way to do it. I suppose this needs to go in the FAQ.)

I don't understand why you don't have banners, on stories that have had editorial changes, to say what the editorial changes are. For example (not suggestions for text) "story reposted with different timestamps", "title changed from 'X is the best thing eva'", "link changed from 'www.superspammy.co.net'", or whatever.

Is transparency of editorial actions bad somehow?

The more directly you surface moderator action, the more people want to discuss moderator actions (you can see a miniature version of this phenomenon in any comment about downvoting). Keeping this kind of metacommentary out of threads is a site goal.

tptacek's reply is correct. The other thing is that we try to be careful about not compromising HN's minimalism, which would be so easy to do.

"no discussion of moderation" (like the rule on not discussing downvotes) seems to handle the first part.

Often, but not consistently AFAICT, a moderator (such as yourself Dang) will add a comment to the effect that a title was changed or a link was rewritten, it's just hidden in the comments; that's a strange thing to do if you fear discussions devolving towards meta topics.

Problems arise when people comment on a story when the substantive parts of the story then have been changed.

As for the second part, surely optional features (as there are already, eg "display dead") don't _compromise_ minimalism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com