

Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN? - vaultboy21

the below is a screengrab of http://news.ycombinator.com/news pages 1 - 3 (reformatted  for continuous viewing), as of 13:00 EDT on Thursday / 16 May 2013. (highlighting and related commentary added).<p>i put this together as a high-level and informal analysis of post rank as a function of: time since submission (hours), upvotes (points), and the volume of comments posted. comparisons made relate to the post <i>Google to Microsoft: Remove your YouTube App from the Windows Phone Store</i> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5715168 (shown as highlighted in yellow; near the bottom..)<p>&#62; http://i.imgur.com/ZCR2hun.jpg<p>without knowing exactly how rank is determined, the highlighted post’s positioning appears to be significantly depressed relative to where it should be, based on examining similar posts (in terms of time since posting, points, and comments).<p>it has been mentioned that this <i>irregularity</i> is likely due to said post being atypically ‘flagged’ as spam. i have no data to back this up, but having seen similar behavior before, i believe this to be the case - and it appears to be a fairly common occurrence with posts that present a viewpoint counter to that of the majority. i believe this apparent abuse of the spam ‘flagging’ feature on HN is seriously detrimental to the community.<p>i think it would be beneficial if we could: (1) get a statement clarifying rules/good practices around ‘flagging’ posts, (2) some form of verification that abuse of this feature has been occurring, or evidence contradicting it, and (3) a discussion around potential changes to the system.. i personally believe keeping the feature in-place makes sense, to help deal with actual spam, but would recommend implementing some logic to help mitigate its abuse (such as a upvote/comment threshold that, if achieved, negates the effect of flags).
======
ColinWright
For convenience, here's a link to the item in question:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5715168>

And here's a history of its ranking, clearly showing flags or other penalizing
behavior:

<http://hnrankings.info/5715168/>

I have no skin in this game, I didn't read the item in question, but I am
interested in community dynamics.

Now I've had a brief look at it. Speaking purely for myself I find the ensuing
thread a deeply unpleasant read. I don't care about the article in question,
but I would flag the thread for its unpleasantness. I haven't, I won't, but I
can see why others might feel that the entire argument is non-constructive,
and that HN would be better off without it.

Just my opinion, of course, which is probably worth as much as you've paid for
it.

 _Added in edit: We're recently learned that HN has a flame-war detector. I'd
be unsurprised to learn that this tripped it._

~~~
simba-hiiipower
..i think one of the reasons the thread got so toxic was over the (apparently
true) allegations that the post was being heavily flagged - and early on.

according to op (of original thread) it appears that the flagging occurred
almost immediately, so the argument that some may be flagging due to the toxic
nature of the thread doesn't make much sense to me.

~~~
ColinWright
According to the record of rankings provided above it was over an hour before
it got flagged enough to affect its rank.

~~~
vaultboy21
its still odd behaviour.. look at any similar post (in terms of age/activity)
and you can clearly see that one stands-out as odd. here's one that looks to
follow a more typical progression - <http://hnrankings.info/5719667/>

also from making it near the top [rank 3 / 22:30-22:45] it rapidly fell close
to the bottom of the front page [rank 22 / 23:10].. that's a pretty quick
decline.

~~~
ColinWright
This is behavior I've seen before. A rapid rise, staying high in the rankings
for a but, then getting a few flags to take it to the bottom of the front
page, or the top of the second page. A few more upvotes to get it back on the
front page, normal declining with age and/or upvotes intermingled with the
occasional flag, then getting hammered.

It's usually on long, unpleasant and angry exchanges that I see this behavior
on, and I'm not at all surprised.

------
DanBC
You say that flagging is only for spam. It isn't. Flagging is for things that
don't belong on HN.

Some things are obviously not suitable for HN. Somethings are obviously
suitable for HN.

The tricky area is things that start off being suitable for HN, but then
quickly collapse into mindless bickering.

There are some words that act as triggers to poor discussion. I proudly flag
threads full of bickering. You should too.

~~~
brudgers
_"Flagging is for things that don't belong on HN."_

Flagging is for flagging. Things that don't belong on HN are part of it.
Redundant articles and bad discussions are others.

Even bad moods are a relevant reason to flag an article. HN is better if
flagging is used to express strong emotion than toxic posting.

~~~
DanBC
Yes, I agree. I do flag when discussion is toxic.

------
ScottWhigham
_i believe this apparent abuse of the spam ‘flagging’ feature on HN is
seriously detrimental to the community._

Like DanBC said, flagging is just for spam. And really - "abuse" is just
hyperbole, isn't it? And while we're talking about hyperbole, your whole title
is just flag-worthy for the dramatics alone.

If, for example, a post gets 447 upvotes, how many flags constitute "flagging
abuse" in your mind? For something to get 447 upvotes means that (a) a large
portion of the community saw the headline, and (b) a large portion of the
community read the article (or at least part). What makes you think that it is
"abuse" if a portion of said Group B decided to flag it as "off topic" or "bad
journalism" (or whatever - I didn't flag it but, like others have said, I can
see how and why some people would)?

You're acting as though flagging should have no weight on ranking. Why not
make your case and put up a poll in a new thread? I'd suggest leaving out a
fair bit of the dramatics you've created this post with though...

~~~
vaultboy21
from: <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

_If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and
clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma
threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did._

..the guidelines clearly specify flagging is for spam or off-topic posts. i
generally define 'abuse' as utilizing a feature for something that its not
intended for, such as burying a story one does not agree with.

saying its 'off topic' is total bs. issues involving standards, ip, public
access, etc.. (also, involving two of the largest tech companies, the mobile
space, a popular web-based product, etc...), seem to be very relevant around
here and frequently come-up.

so.. this wasn't spam or off-topic, yet shows heavy flag activity. that
indicates abuse to me. would 'misuse' be better? - its petty of you to dismiss
my point as being 'dramatic'. i attempted to frame the issue as i saw it,
using the evidence i was able to scrape-together, and tried to avoid making
generalizations or turning it into a 'hn hates microsoft' or whatever as i'm
sure this happens often, but this case highlighted it most clearly, and most
recently..

~~~
ScottWhigham
_its petty of you to dismiss my point as being 'dramatic'._

No, sorry, that's not true. I wasn't the one who judged your original post -
the one that was killed (by flagging) within minutes. Those people judged your
post as hyperbole/dramatic/whatever you want to call it as well. I'm judging
this specific post, however, and it is dramatic both in it's content and
certainly in it's language. The title is just silly - "Can we have an _honest_
discussion about _abusive_ flagging on HN?" (italics mine). What other
discussion would we have other than an honest one?

"Abusive" is just a word chosen for effect; misuse, while definitely being
less dramatic, still implies that the community is doing something wrong. I
don't think most of us feel that way. I think most of us old timers flag for
different reasons than the newbies. My suspicion is that a lot of the older
members (who also have high karma) flagged your original post for the reasons
I've mentioned. If I'd seen it, I would've flagged it (as I've flagged this
one).

------
brudgers
HN is statefull. The software manages it with user input. Sometimes HN even
gets managed at the REPL.

The system isn't designed to be perfectly fair. It's designed to work, not to
be purely functional. Anyway, there is no objective measure of merit for any
submission or comment.

As CollinWright says, he would have flagged the thread because of the tenor of
the discussion. This is not flagging the article or killing the story. It's
taking the discussion off the front page.

------
dangrossman
Most things about Microsoft get flagged off (even a not-very-positive review
of the Surface Pro tablet yesterday, which had lots of comments). Most every
submission about the Marketplace Fairness Act ('internet sales tax') were also
flagged numerous times despite no real bickering in the comments; some people
really don't want it discussed at all for some reason.

------
vaultboy21
..i posted this yesterday under a diferent account but it was apparently
removed, almost immediately. hopefully the same doesn't happen again.

edit: for convenience, clickable link to image above
<http://i.imgur.com/ZCR2hun.jpg>

~~~
DanBC
Do you have show dead turned on? Try turning it on and searching for the item.
Maybe it got marked as dead. Maybe it just got flagged to death.

Meta stuff is often killed quickly.

~~~
vaultboy21
within a minute or two after posting it disappeared off the 'new' page. not
sure what would have been the cause but i don't believe flagging would have
caused that.

