Comment by kb101 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kb101 | Hacker News Reader

Hacker News seems to be evolving and becoming many things to many users. Why not leverage that instead of trying to restrict it? Regardless of whether things are "on topic" or not, the site has two things going for it that other communities often strive in vain to build: traffic and a definable culture.

My suggestion: a column down the left with a topic marker: startup advice, network technology, programming tips, hacker culture, VC firm news, economics, politics, military tech.... whatever the topics are that people are actually posting and upvoting.

Classifying a topic could be done by a voting algorithm, weighted by karma... the poster thinks the topic is economics, then it gets marked as economics. If enough commenters feel that it falls under politics instead, then their clicks on that topic classification (submitted as part of the comment form) will reclassify it as such. Those users who want to see only certain topics can filter as desired.

The spirit of respectful and collegial debate that pervades the site is a huge draw and could just as easily be applied to the "off-topic" as the "on-topic"... and there is a synergy in having both available. It keeps things fresh and interesting and there is intellectual stimulation available here that you can't get anywhere else, regardless of topic.

I guess I am saying that the pool can be bigger and still be clean, and it can have a shallow and a deep end, fast and slow lanes, and serve a wide range of swimmers... but still be known for its overall high quality.

I think that would work well (especially if the grouping could be largely automated). I personally would like to see a category for articles that are purely intellectually stimulating (e.g. stuff equivalent in thoughtfulness to pg's essays).

On the other hand, I think it would be useful to have strict limits on how far the culture stretches. We should try to preserve the geeky, business-y, thoughtful culture, rather than going the route of reddit where everyone's allowed to do what they want.

This is a great idea.

The other thoughts I had on this subject are a little more radical but I'll say them anyway: why not get rid of downvoting entirely? I'm a new enough user that downvoting isn't even an option for me and I can't say that I miss it.

This site is already radically different from other online communities, why not go full-bore and just make it based purely on a the-cream-rises-to-the-top model?

I would imagine the flag feature is enough to get rid of the spam or junk topics. If someone really likes a topic or wants to see it stay on the front page, they can burn up karma with upvote boosts (to a limit).

It seems the focus here is already on the community finding and upvoting topics of intellectual value and fostering stimulating discussion. Why not just bring that to a laser-like focus and drop all efforts at "punishing" or otherwise disciplining members of the community.

There's a big difference in motivation between thinking "what can I add to the discussion that will be appreciated and upvoted" versus "gee I sure hope I don't get penalized for saying this"... and that thought loop feeds back into the culture of the site. Right now I would (subjectively) say that 85-90% of the effort people put into the site is positive, while maybe 10-15% of it is negative (downvoting, indulging in a bit of flaming, etc.). If the architecture of the site was further refined to reduce channels for negative action, it would seem that positive effort component could get upped to 90-95% and make this place even more of a standout than it already is. HN could be one big proof-of-concept that a large, diverse, open community on the web can still be a highly evolved and civil community.

why not get rid of downvoting entirely?

Dissenting opinion (from someone who generally believes in positive reinforcement as the best policy): I tend to be a very controversial figure, wherever I go. I have dropped out of a lot of communities in part due to the degree to which I get attacked. Some of my comments here get upvoted, downvoted, upvoted, downvoted. It can be entertaining to watch it. It usually doesn't result in some pissing contest. I am content with having people who don't like me/my opinions vent their spleen by viciously giving an entire downvote to my comment and then moving on. I'm very cool with that. It beats the hell out of anything else I've known so far.

You make a compelling point. But not everyone has such a thick skin or is that relaxed about getting vented on... maybe if downvoting cost karma and there was a karma threshold for being the recipient of a downvote? That could be interesting: battle of the karma titans. Meanwhile, new people could get their feet wet without getting pilloried for their mistakes.

Oh, I'm not thick-skinned. I sit at my computer and whine to my two adult sons with the voice of a 3 year old about how nobody likes me, nobody talks to me, I have no friends and I got DOWNVOTED -- when I may have 20 upvotes and 1 downvote. I just think it's the lesser evil.

Kinda similar here. I dislike "me too" responses, and tend to be the devil's advocate because that's the point of debating vs "commenting". The funniest is when my comments get downvoted, yet acquire tons of responses [1] [2]. It's kind of interesting to see how the votes fluctuate until they reach their final (usually low) score.

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3116043 [2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3125017

I wouldn't say I'm a devil's advocate sort. I just don't seem to fit anyone's ready-made assumptions/categories/whatever. I say something like "I lost a lot of weight and it's nice to feel better but I'm not entirely comfortable with all the invasive attention from total strangers". Someone gives me advice on how to avoid male attention. It hadn't occur to me initially to clearly state that the majority of the discomfiting attention is from women who want to be like me, not men who want to get with me.

I have a serious medical condition that is supposed to be killing me, and I do still have bad days at times, but I'm getting well when doctor's (and everyone else) says that can't be done (getting well is why I have slimmed down so much). To me, that is an ordinary fact and I talk about it casually at times online, the way I would to the two sons who live with me and know all the details. For other people, that's a headfuck and most folks divide up between being highly impressed or spitting in my face and accusing me of both making up crap and being a danger to others to talk about it (which makes me want to go "Okay, which is it? You can't have it both ways.").

In short, I guess I'm the anti-group-think wherever I go. AKA lightening rod for controversy.

I hadn't considered getting rid of downvoting entirely, but it makes sense, especially since we can't agree on what it should be used for. Some of us think we should only downvote vapid, trolling or otherwise lame comments. Others (pg included) think it's perfectly fine to use downvoting to indicate dissenting opinion. It would be interesting to see what happened if we just abolished it.

I like the topics ideas, as someone who is very interested in the ASK HN threads. I think this is a great start and a way to get new people more involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com