[flagged]
Is interpreting guidelines literally or narrowly worth it? The word itself suggests that might be a mistake.
Engagement (or not) is the ultimate judge here I'd suggest. I regularly view the "new" category and see countless examples there that could be considered off topic. Quite often this is true for those that make it to the front page. Hulk Hogan's death being a recent prime example.
I personally believe the Israel/Gaza subject is important enough and on topic enough, but can understand the opposite perspective too.
Maybe my memory is faulty or maybe I was less interested in the off-topic posts, but I thought that, in the past, there used to less bending the knee to the mob and more appealing to the stated guidelines.
It is not a community-enhancing action to publish guidelines and make exceptions because it's what a mob wants. That's not what moderating is. If the overriding guideline is engagement, then fine; say that and eliminate the other superfluous ones. It will save a lot of space on the Guidelines page and people coming here will understand that it is r/hn.
So: 1. Disallowing posts like these is worth it in order to promote the goals often expressed by the moderators for this site and 2. It does not require a narrow interpretation of the guidelines to conclude that posts similar to these violate all the guidelines. Let's see what happens with this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45681400
And it turns out your latest comments are on the same topic, which is fine, I'm happy to keep responding.
On this:
- “there used to less bending the knee to the mob”
- “make exceptions because it's what a mob wants”
"Mobs" have nothing to do with it.
The answer is in your root comment: "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon". When a politics story makes the front page, it's because it contains "significant new information". That's literally the acid test we think about, that we use internally when discussing it and that we often use in comments explaining our reasoning.
When we think about these stories we're not thinking about engagement at all. That's never a consideration. And we're not thinking about appealing to the "lowest common denominator", which is what the term "mob" implies.
All we're thinking about is:
- does this story contain “significant new information”?
- will many of the most positive contributors to HN think that this is an important topic to discuss here?
If it's yes to both then we'll turn off flags and spend the day trying to keep the thread healthy. If not then we'll let it disappear.
Seeing something and objecting to its presence doesn't mean it has suddenly appeared, nothing has changed other than your sensitivity for whatever particular reason. It's how you are applying your perspective that is the difference I would suggest.
The part of the guidelines that says "unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" is as important as any other.
what you have here is article with misleading title that is contradicted in second paragraph of the article.
also, in general, you can broadly apply "they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" to any given article
here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046, you have "new phenomenon" . why won't you unflag it?
We haven't said it is. In fact, we haven't really looked at the article. This submission got effectively no attention or engagement on HN. It spent zero time on the front page, and most of the discussion is this meta subthread. So, there's no aberration from the guidelines in the case of this item.
> here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45659046, you have "new phenomenon" . why won't you unflag it?
We also haven't seen that one. It also spent no time on the front page and had little discussion. Nobody has contacted us asking us to unflag it and making a case for it containing "significant new information".
> also, in general, you can broadly apply "they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" to any given article
That's false and is the most important point to recognise about HN. Most of what is in the mainstream news is not "new". It's mostly the same story with different details (i.e., most day-to-day political drama, celebrity news, crime stories, etc). Or they're notable for being unusual (e.g., person who wins the lottery three times) but not any kind of interesting new phenomenon.
Sometimes a mainstream news item really is about an interesting new phenomenon, and that's when it qualifies for HN.
as other guy wrote, this article essentially violates all rules. and there is no "new phenomenon" described in it. Why it's not flagged/killed by you ?
There were dozens of times when articles about Israel were unflagged by mod team. Articles that violate all guidelines. Articles that are not even news but speculations. Articles with quality of sourcing that will be typically laughed out of the room here. Articles that 100% of time turn into circlejerk about Israel in which all dissenting opinions and facts (backed with links) are flagged away in order to suppress them (how does it goes with "important topic to discuss here")
quoting you
>- does this story contain “significant new information”?
>- will many of the most positive contributors to HN think that this is an important topic to discuss here?
>If it's yes to both then we'll turn off flags and spend the day trying to keep >the thread healthy. If not then we'll let it disappear.
This is laughable
And i won't say that this forum becomes reddit. it worst than reddit. at reddit mods of subreddits are honest enough with putting in guidelines "no zionists are allowed here". you hide behind "significant new information" and "important to discuss"
Deleted comment
The phrasing of the guidelines led me to believe that the "significant new information" was intended as a secondary or clarifying guideline. Otherwise why not just list it as one of the on-topic criteria?
This clarification of the exception is relevant: "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic." If I watched TV news, I'd expect to see many of the posts we're discussing on it.
"New information" is an essentially tautological fig leaf that could justify the inclusion of anything that shows up in the eponymous news. If I need to, I can find numerous examples of flame wars incited by posts that violate all the guidelines except, possibly, this one about significant new information. Which seems to make this into a discussion about what is "significant". I think a community-trust enhancing action would be to eliminate this criterion.
Some examples of posts which violate all the guidelines except, perhaps, being new information and also, perhaps, significant. Although, arguably, if they are new and significant would be covered by TV news.
‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler (latimes.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44731958
How Israeli actions caused famine in Gaza, visualized https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45447699
IDF officers ordered to fire at unarmed crowds near Gaza food distribution sites (haaretz.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44402896
Israel, Hamas reach ceasefire deal to end 15 months of war in Gaza (reuters.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42716440