Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonlfunk | Hacker News Reader

Maybe there should be some indication on the post that the article/title was changed so the edits aren't attributed to the original submitter. This would at least resolve that confusion.

It seems like the current model tries to be like SlashDot (where everything curated) but retains the appearance of user-driven content by keeping it's curation hidden.

View on HN

When an article and/or title is changed, I'd like to see a comment with the original title and a link to the original article. I should note that dang often adds a comment that a change occurred -- which I appreciate -- but I'd like to see a little more context.

The modified/edited/curated title and/or URL could always be shown underneath or beside the original title and URL, which remain unchanged.

Or, how about "forking" posts. If the content is truly of higher quality, then the fork will be up-voted more from that point on. If not, then the original post will be. And why must the article be attributed to only one person. Karma could be shared by some mechanism if a forked post gits [sic] more up-votes.

I think "hellbanning" should also be a part of this conversation. The combination of mods non-transparent editing practices and hellbanning makes an extremely strong case for categorizing the mod system as a form of censorship.

HN is a private website. So, I fully believe that HN should be allowed to censor if it would like to. I certainly at times censor my friends when they post to my facebook wall. But my facebook wall isn't a community. And it doesn't purport to provide news. Thus, I believe HN should be held to a higher standard.

I wonder why the parent comment was voted down. I don't see anything wrong with it. In fact, it has some perfectly reasonable ideas and suggestions.

I find it odd that people within the discussion here can suggest that bad flagging or bad voting isn't an issue, when we have a perfect example of it involving what's currently the 7th comment from the top.

I'm just at a complete loss at to how I was down-voted so much without a single comment as to the reason why. I was trying to be constructive and on topic.

You were lawyering about whether or not something is censorship, but the question of what words to assign to what acts has nothing to do with the question at hand. You made a weak argument to declare X, then presumed X in a weak argument to declare Y, and you tried to amplify your argument simply by declaring that you're being convincing.

Also you took the opportunity to be clever with some weird pun about git(?) and readers probably inferred certain things about your motivations for making a post.

I see your 'straw man' and raise you an 'ad hominem'. I've just read through your HN comments. You're consistently extremely negative, to no purpose. "Your argument sucks because..." etc.

Yes, I am not that good at posting and I often get downvoted accordingly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com