Your point should really that the complaints aren't justified properly rather than there aren't a sufficient number of them.
> complaints aren't justified properly rather than there aren't a sufficient number of them
it's not that they aren't "justified properly", it's that they aren't justified at all.
From my submission: "I hate to be that guy who posts this sort of comment. Especially on HN. But still: Someone has to say it.
Pointless hipster-TLD is pointless. Utterly pointless."
Is it pointless?
Tell that to codepen.io, or card.io (who got acquired by Paypal).
"But still: Someone has to say it."
Did someone have to say it?
Saying something is pointless over and over doesn't make it pointless. That seems to be the basis of the argument.
Largely speaking, and with few exceptions, this is a community moderated forum. Enough of the community decided that the submission wasn't sufficiently on-topic.
If you feel strongly that the data you presented is on topic then perhaps you would fare better not simply to post a bare list, but write a blog post about why short names like this are of value to startups, and how having a short domain name can radically improve your chances, and how you wrote a script to create the list, and now you're sharing it because you believe it to be of value.
You claim the protester gave no reasons for claiming it's pointless, but equally, you gave no reasons for why it is of value.
And just in case I need to say it again, I'm merely providing my analysis of this situation through my model of how the community works. I personally am passing no judgment on how HN works, nor on the community's interests and/or actions.
It would be good if users were given not only flag, but also unflag possibility. As it is right now, it takes only a few users to flag an article to disappear, although there might be hundreds users that would be opposed to that that can affect the flagging process because there is no unflag option.
Consider your front page. It's the same as everyone else's front page. The ranking of the items is a function of how old each item is, how many points it has, how many flags it's got, whether it's trip a filter, etc.
Now I flag an item. That penalizes the item and causes its computed value to fall. This in turn may cause its position in the rankings to fall, and thus will affect the front page.
But the front page is your front page, and hence my flagging an item can affect "your" front page.
How can you think it would be otherwise?
Or a moderator. Or something else that's nixing submissions.
>If you feel strongly that the data you presented is on topic then perhaps you would fare better not simply to post a bare list, but write a blog post about why short names like this are of value to startups, and how having a short domain name can radically improve your chances, and how you wrote a script to create the list, and now you're sharing it because you believe it to be of value.
Actionable data isn't useful? From the comments:
"Amazed how many good names are still available. Looking to do a real-estate startup? How about: crib.io (available)"
"I was amazed that nag.io was still available. I snatched it!"
What good is it doing you to argue with me that this submission was of value, and shouldn't've been flagged?
This submission got the same treatment. It would seem, even trying to talk about change can't be done. A fair vote taken down.
And look, here is an item with 7 points and 22 (and now more) comments. Again, points/comments is very small, so it will disappear quickly.
And again, this discussion has very little actual value. let me try to summarise how it might appear:
* 14 hours ago you registered your username
* 7 hours ago you submitted an item that appears to have been flagged off the front page
* 2 hours ago you submit an item about how unfair that is, and how everyone should have instantly realised how valuable your submission was.
* Now you complain that your complaint is being flagged.
* When I explain about how things work, you just continually come back and say that it shouldn't be like that.
Well, that's how it might appear. Welcome to HN.
Added in edit ...
In this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5685591 you said:
... it seems to only take one person
to vehemently object.
Or if it's moderators, they should re-think censorship as a reasonable action for posts that may not be to their taste.
* You saw value in it.
* A few others clearly saw value in it.
* Still others saw it as having negative value.
* The ones who thought it had negative value flagged it.
* They should not have done so.
* Something should be done.
Are you going to suggest what should be done?
>Well, that's how it might appear. Welcome to HN.
This is a dead submission. Censored.
You don't seem to understand the culture here, and you seem unwilling to try to learn. Meta-discussions are almost invariably flagged, because all too often other forums drown in a self-inflicted morass of navel-gazing.
Are you really surprised that people are flagging your complaint about how not everyone realized the value of your second ever submission? And now I see you've made another complaint.
I've tried to help you see how things work here, but you haven't yet even got enough karma to see the "flag" link, you appear not to have read the guidelines, and all you seem to be doing is complaining that people are behaving in ways you don't understand.
If you insist on putting your own uninformed interpretations on things and not listening to explanations from people who have been here five years, I don't know how to help you.