Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I think this is a horrible decision. I've never seen this work. My biggest objection is based on the fact I have to wait for someone to endorse my comment.

I post a lot of comments here, regularly. Some of them get hot and turn into a linked-list O(n) depth tree... I also post during time when few people are around. By the time I want to say something interesting and hope someone can engage with me my comment would be so deep down. This is not really karma whoring. But I want to be able to express myself instantly, right away so anyone reading the article at that moment may check out my voice too.

I don't see why we need this restriction. This should be restricted to people who have a history of getting downvoted and people who are new to HN. That makes sense. But people who have been here long enough and with a good record shouldn't be penalized.

Call me impatient but I read and write quickly. I can't wait an hour to get one comment approved.

Note I am well above 1000 karma and I don't like this...

And if the whole point is to promote comments that can contribute to the discussion, then downvote will work just fine. Any uncivil or harsh comment usually get to the bottom of the page quickly. If I express similar or even same opinion as someone else, should my comment be approved? If the answer is yes, then almost every comment should be endorsed. Then what is the whole point of this pending feature?




[deleted]


I am probably too young to think of one with the same restriction. It doesn't work because there is no real gain.

The point seems to be to improve the quality of comments.

Look. The intention is good. But I don't like this feature. Since most comments will be endorsed eventually, we won't gain much from this restriction.

Some people don't understand sarcasm (I am with this group!). Sarcasm is not necessarily a bad thing and can be quite fun to read. This is not a forum where people post scholarly comments. As long as the comment is genuine I personally consider it a good comment.

Now some people have a more compelling reason to "karma-whore".


I think one compromise could be to remove this restriction from users with > x karma. It's not ideal to me but it is something ...


A bad comment is a bad comment whether I write it or a green-named user does. Jerkface.


This is why I think the anonymous idea above is a good add-on, if we have to have this system.


The number of bad comment is relatively low. And what kind of bad comments are we after?


Wow do I ever disagree with that. Comments on HN have gotten genuinely awful.


I hear you express this sentiment often. Could you explain your thoughts on this?

If anything, I think the stories are the problem. Cool hacks and interesting science often fail to get the 2-3 upvotes they need to escape the new page. On page 2 of "New", I've found the following fairly decent stories that died recently: http://simplystatistics.org/2014/03/20/the-8020-rule-of-stat... http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/cassandra-...

Yet both of these are vastly more useful than Julie Horvath's "omfg, I had a workplace conflict" or "Yay basic income, no facts, no reasoning, yay" (currently 380 pts, 441 comments, was #1 for a while today).

I'd suggest that it's far more important to improve the stories than to improve the comments. The comments on a story like "JDK 8 Release Notes" or "Circuit Breaker" (about a distributed computing design pattern) are actually quite good.


I agree: as long as we restrict ourselves to tech stories in which (a) no startup is implicated in any way (lest the thread devolve into litigation of San Francisco real estate prices) and (b) no sharks/jets rivalry exists (rails v node, rust v go, mongo v cassandra), the comments on HN are pretty good.

Every other story has mean, uninformed, badly-written, unproductive comments

I also agree that the stories are the bigger problem.


I don't think that 'general' topics that most people have something to say about are inherently bad (in my opinion). They just have a few problems.

First, On 'developing statistical methods' the average HNer has more insightful things to say than the average person. On alternatives to social welfare the average HN commenter is not much more insightful than the average person. The only reason to do it here is because here is the community where they discuss things online.

Second some articles contributes no more than just the topic ("Yay basic income, no facts, no reasoning, yay"). HN isn't for that so it fails. It works for discussing articles or specific facts and news items, not for discussing 'topics.^' ATM it looks like there are 2-3 of these on page one.

^BTW, is there any software specifically designed to allow discussion of these "forever topics." IE, the topics that keeps popping up in every forum and get pinned in the traditional BB forums?


Okay. But what is a bad comment then? Maybe your standard is very different from my standard.


If only there was some way to aggregate the opinions of all participants, like through some sort of voting system.


um ... ok. But the thing is I don't think this necessary so I would like some way for the echo chamber to not hold. Obviously, the ideal would be to not have the restriction. :)


It is, actually. Comments by users with over 10k karma go live immediately.


Really? Are you sure about that decision? If it were my site, I'd decide the other way, if only because I'd worry about the interaction between high-karma commenters that can rapid-fire respond and normal users who have to wait.


I don't think people will have to wait so much they'll notice, but we'll see.


Unfortunate, and I say that as a user with more than 10k karma. All comments should earn their endorsements on their own. High karma users are as capable of mean/stupid comments as anyone.


It looks like the number of users with >10k karma ≈ 0.3%[^1] Do you have any estimate of number of users >5k and >1k?

[^1]: https://hn-karma-tracker.herokuapp.com/overall


I like the intent.

Given that karma is a function of votes from articles posted as well as net votes from comments made, is there a way to use the second but not the first for karma limits related to comments?




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: