A nice side effect is that it will double as a confirmation step, solving the FFF (fat finger flagging) problem.
A nice side effect is that it will double as a confirmation step, solving the FFF (fat finger flagging) problem.
You need a reason that means "this person is talking about something helpful that an admin needs to fix." Flagging currently has a negative connotation (too many flags and the comment gets deleted), but sometimes you want to flag a comment that says something like "the link is broken and should be X" to just bring it to admin attention without the implied negative judgement.
Thanks for not standing still on this issue. The world is changing, fast, and glad HN responded quicker than some forums on a cogent stance.
Thank you!!!
I'm joking, but we've always resisted partitioning HN. Here a bunch of past explanations about that: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
I do sort of like the idea (suggested by mthurman) that we let users prompt HN to be the kind of HN they want. That could be the ultimate dump of long-requested features (dark mode! tags! blocklists!)
Or will they have to simply eat the karma hit and move on?
I mean my comments may have been flagged or I may even have been shadowbanned but I never look at old comments to check.
Adding AI in addition to the standard up/downvote and flag seems a reasonable thing.
If one person's humor is another person's satire is another person's political, then splitting it into N options muddles the signal.
Downvotes are bad enough between "I disagree with this" and "This isn't an appropriate comment for HN."