Ask HN: Why is the HN comments section no better than Fox News or NYT?

HN is working fine; different sub-groups segregate under different topics. People who care about Rust comment under threads about Rust, people who care about science-fiction post comments in threads about science-fiction. And people who care about politics post under threads about politics.

Then the question of "why threads about politics usually have lower quality of comments" is left as an exercise for the reader.

Now that You have provided examples of what You don't want.

Could You provide examples of any online community with a comments section that is more of what You consider better?

Or is this just a rant in the form of a question? (Which is ok, just want to make this a more rationale, evidence based discussion)

Read the post. There are two questions neither of which you have answered.

1. What hope do we have if creators and maintainers (of apps) are prone to the same proclivities as the users?

2. What can HN do to make not only it’s commenting section better but also improve the quality of commenting on the interwebs? Why?

Sorry for my comment, I guess I wont waste your time or mine anymore. Good luck with your question, I hope You find the answers You are seeking.

I took a look at the posts:

453 points | 548 comments

558 points | 774 comments

169 points | 300 comments

218 points | 510 comments

As a recommendation, try to avoid the comment section it post were the number of comments is greater than the number of upvotes.

I think the inescapable problem is that this is someone else's heavily moderated (automatically and manually) forum, not a blog or a bulletin board.

A thorough well-sourced reply is just as likely to get downvoted/flagged/grayed-out over a disagreement as a low-effort one. With those dynamics, most people aren't going to bother with an effortpost.

Personally, I miss the old bulletin boards. The upvote/downvote approach has become a groupthink amplifier, and this is even more pernicious when unpopular-yet-civil opinions are disappeared.

This is a good point. Two ideas.

1. What if comments containing a link to “evidence” were more heavily weighted? The evidence could be inaccurate or biased but that would lead to better conversations than anecdotal information, no?

2. What if the upvote/downvote were categorized?

Examples:

- “-1 Commenter appears to not have read post, irrelevant”.

- “-1 Commenter did not provide link to evidence or source material”.

- “+1 Commenter provided link to research/evidence”.

There could be a second layer where people could vote on what they perceive as the quality of the evidence.

From this perspective, HN could maybe let more controversial and even inflammatory comments stay while letting commenters discuss the merits of the evidence that backs/refutes them.

Just an idea but the current lack of innovation in HN moderation feels lazy and half-baked.

I think the hiding is the worst part. If a post just floats to the bottom, at least it's still there.