Hacker News Reader

Comment by pg | Hacker News Reader

Pending comments are now per thread, or more precisely per item tree, rather than sitewide. That was the original plan, and it turned out to be only a little more code. The moderator (who is not me) will turn pending comments on as needed when conversations turn nasty.

That doesn't happen on most threads, but it does happen on some, and pending comments may help fix the problem. I'm not sure it will. The moderator will have to experiment to see what works. But since the code was slightly complicated I wanted at least to get the initial version done before I left.

View on HN

I can't tell you how glad I am you came to this decision. As I mentioned in another thread[0], I use HN as a 'ledger of opinion' of sorts, and have always appreciated the ability to weigh in after a conversation has come to a close.

I was actually worried on finding all about pending comment changes this morning; they seemed like quite meaningful changes that would have all but eliminated a lot of the ways I interact with Hacker News. It seems this was planned to be 'per thread' to begin with, which makes it a very appropriate moderation tool, so my worry was for naught.

Thanks for all, and hope leaving is for the best. I have never been involved with Y Combinator, but appreciate your writing, and the community. I hope you continue writing.

[0]-https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7449717

Per-thread (or per-tree) makes a lot of sense. I would guess that relevance and quality are best judged locally, rather than globally. There are definitely global principles on which to assess the quality of a comment. But even those principles depend on local context.

There are certain categories of comment, in particular, that lend themselves to mischaracterization when viewed out of context. Humor, for instance. Sarcasm. Subtle parody. Tongue in cheek. Ideally you want more from a comment than just a snarky one liner. But sometimes a well-placed quip adds perspective and value to a conversation. (Most of the time, it probably doesn't. But you don't want to implement a system that filters all of it.)

> The moderator (who is not me) will turn pending comments on as needed when conversations turn nasty

Does this mean that they are not enabled by default?

Yes.

Thank you :)

This is great.

I was concerned with the idea of site-wide pending comments, as it could have a chilling effect on controversial ideas, and water down discussions. Or, worse, eliminate comments past the front page, as no one would want to risk being blocked from further commenting.

You could alleviate the problem by allowing people to delete pending comments, but it's like asking people to sacrifice their own creations. It would make me think twice before spending time to comment next time.

Having this disabled by default, and enabling only on particularly controversial threads (that tend to bring the majority of low-quality comments) solves most of these problems.

I think this is the best approach. A good balance between negative flagging, and positive endorsement.

Beautiful. Thank you very much.

This is a big improvement on the original plan. Thank you for listening to the community.

This was the original plan.

I'm very glad you've done this. For me, the difference between pending comments sitewide and pending comments per thread is the difference between stifling all but 4.5k users's comments and a having a civil site.

What is the 'endorse' button called now?

According to the dictionary [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/endorse] endorsement implies agreement (so at first sight it would be equivalent to the upvote button), but it was said in another thread that you can endorse something without agreeing with it. Have you considered other names for the button?

That's disappointing to me. That means this new tool, which would have had a nearly non-existent impact on normal use, will only be deployed once the damage is done.

Instead of pro-active moderation by a crowd, we have reactive moderation by a few. I doubt it will have much positive impact at this point.

I'm also disappointed in the way most posters have reacted to this change, waving their arms around as if the world is going to end. Here, even in this subthread people are saying it would have ended the way they used HN. It would have done no such thing.

I know I shouldn't be surprised at how badly people react to the smallest changes, but I did think this group might be different.

Still, I'm going to keep this very conservative reaction from HN in mind next time someone is saying an industry who had their entire business model disrupted should just "deal with it".

There's also depressingly little faith in our fellow HNers to be able to moderate fairly. And that really is sad.

> which would have had a nearly non-existent impact on normal use

Then don't you think it would have been a bit useless? "Normal use" does tend to include wrong comment.

(Which have their utility, see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham's_Law )

@PG: Thanks for the change.

I seem to be the only voice disagreeing with this being a good thing, but I was actually looking forward to seeing if it decreased comments without thought or information that is useful or relevant or original.

How many moderators are on HN? It seems to me that unless the vast majority of threads are patrolled fairly quickly it will allow the same behavior, while stopping only a few comments from existing for the general public.

To me this seems like just an expansion of the downvote option, but giving a few an even bigger weight to swing. Maybe its just an intermediary place between a downvote and a hellban, but I don't know that it is needed.

Is there an indicator that shows that an item tree is in pending comments mode?

Not yet. I'll probably display something when a whole thread is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com