Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkohari | Hacker News Reader

I'm not picking on you specifically, but I think this is an example of a very common problem on HN. Someone posts a very harshly-worded negative comment. Then the OP responds to it, and the commenter walks back their comment and praises the post.

It seems like once people realize they're communicating with other real-life human beings, they are much more civil. Couldn't we try to consider that ahead of time, and avoid the off-handed negativity in the first place? It would make HN (and nonverbal communication in general) much more productive and enjoyable.

If the two comments combined fully capture your viewpoint, why not say something along the lines of, "Your advice is good and the post is fairly well-written, but it sort of comes off as a product advertisement. You cite scientific evidence, but you don't provide any sources, which makes it seem unsubstantiated."

Just a suggestion.

View on HN

> I'm not picking on you specifically, but I think this is an example of a very common problem on HN. Someone posts a very harshly-worded negative comment. Then the OP responds to it, and the commenter walks back their comment and praises the post.

Or they're being honest the entire time, and simply posted about the negative part, because who wants to be that chucklehead going '+1' or 'Good post' ("that's what voting is for, dummy!")? Unfortunately, this then leads to comment sections coming off as negative and essentially being a bugtracker for a submission.

(Some relevant musings on this topic: http://lesswrong.com/lw/3h/why_our_kind_cant_cooperate/ & http://lesswrong.com/lw/372/defecting_by_accident_a_flaw_com... )

I view comments as a form of feedback. As such, they go both ways. As a contributor, I would want to see sincere examples of both positive and negative feedback. We don't only learn from mistakes, after all. Upvotes are nice, but comments are generally considered to be more meaningful.

HN tends to err on the side of critical feedback, which is a reflection, in part, of the evidence-driven ethos that permeates hacker culture. This is generally a trait I hold in high regard, and take the downside as par for the course. However, I agree with the parent in that having some empathy for those we critique would improve the general tone of discussion here.

Seconded. I see this (and am guilty myself) often even in workplace emails, etc. where people are supposed to be respectful. It's not so much that you can't put someone on blast, but whether you can live with knowing you just called another thinking human being a scumbag/asshole/dumbass/whatever.

Thanks for that. You are right, of course.

This kind of thing is generally true in a whole lot of areas. I notice with our customer support for example, if an initial email will be loaded with vitriol and hate. If something is sent to a customer that looks anything like a "form" response in reply it will do nothing to calm them down.

If the same content is rephrased in a "custom" way, chargebacks get cancelled, and you will start to get praise for having amazing customer support even if the resolution is the same and even if the final decision isn't what the customer actually wanted in the first place!

Sometimes the truth should take priority over positive/negative dimension.

Health advice on internet should be scrutinized for the benefit of the readers (the "negative" comment, facts domain).

Content and its author are separate therefore the effort that was put into the post may be commented on separately for the benefit of the author (the "walking back" comment, social domain).

Though it is always great if a comment could be both honest and nice.

"but I think this is an example of a very common problem on HN"

In the true spirit of HN let me 2nd what you are saying and wonder why the parent was so quick to back off what he said.

Although the OP has said he will provide links he also said this:

"I walked into the office on January 9th and suddenly had access to some of the most knowledgeable people on sleep out there."

So who are these people and what makes them so knowledgeable about sleep exactly?

I guess the real question is how do you say this "nicer":

'This post seems like one big, long unsubstantiated bunch of app spam for "zeo"'

maybe:

'I'd like some of the claims here substantiated. On the surface it appears to me that this well written post is simply app spam for "zeo"'

Being sincerely complimentary... or at least addressing points you might want to bring up in a delicate manner... requires a shift in the way people relate to others. It seems to me that taking a handful of generic compliments and sprinkling them among your real message will start to induce people to skim read it as a high noise to signal ratio.

I never suggested that someone should misrepresent or soften their position to avoid making someone feel bad. If you hate an article, I want to know that you hate it, and why. I'm only asking that everyone remember that they're speaking with other human beings.

Maybe a reasonable litmus test for the HN crowd is: if the article was instead a speech at a conference, would you go up to the speaker afterwards (or during Q&A) and say what you're going to say? If not, why?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com