Not deleted, flagged. Folks who think an article is not HN material or useful can click the 'flag' button, enough flags and the article is made 'dead' which drops it out of consideration for ranking.
Right. I mention that in the post, I guess I could have phrased the title better.
The larger question is "why was it flagged?" There was a lively discussion on the topic, and it seems very relevant to the startup scene. The fact that this topic would be considered "not worthy" of HN speaks volumes by itself.
I see, the answer then is straight forward. You have interpreted the lively discussion as a signal that something is appropriate for HN, this is not the case. There are many things for which readers here would engage in lively discussions that are entirely outside the 'appropriateness' definitions.
A lively discussion only signals that many HN readers hold an opinion on the topic that is strong enough to relate, but that signal is perpendicular to a signal that would indicate appropriateness.
Well, no, I also mentioned that it was relevant for the startup scene. It involves a startup. There are lessons within to be learned about PR and handling complaints from users. It is of more relevance to startups than "Your boss shouldn't get your Facebook password".
It just seems like there are enough members of HN out there are unwilling to discuss a topic that makes them uncomfortable. Ostrich syndrome, indeed.
What is your definition of ad nauseum? Are you really suggesting that the Geeklist story isn't worth discussing even once, because it falls under the banner "sexism" and is therefore all talked out?
This is an important subject that many users were invested in pursuing. Flagging should be reserved for abuses or instances where something is clearly problematic.
HN is a community oriented around startups. This was a good example of a bunch of issues pertaining to startups and startup culture.
Just a minor clarification. If you are familiar with the concept behind auto-driven reputation type systems, of which HN and Reddit are good exemplars, then you will recognize that any story being flagged to death is not a reflection on the story or the topic or the even necessarily the submitter, it is instead a community expression that the community does not feel the material/topic/story is appropriate/relevant for this venue.
This system is like market economics where the price of something isn't "right" or "wrong" so much as the market mechanisms have set that price.
The message anyone should take from having something they submit getting flagged dead is that the community here is not interested in discussing it here which doesn't mean they are 'ostriches' or any other pejorative things, its just not the place.
The only other analogy I can come up with on the spur of the moment is if you are standing in a group and start talking about colo-rectal cancer and colonoscopies, and that group excuses themselves and moves elsewhere, it is more about the venue than the topic.
So don't take it personally, don't be disrepectful of the people here by calling them names, and take the discussion elsewhere. Its pretty simple, no conspiracies, no hidden agendas, nothing preventing you from talking up a storm in a community that wants to talk about it.
Err, I didn't call anyone anything or be disrespectful. I didn't take it personally. I just voiced an opinion about this case.
As a member of this community, I reserve the right to voice an opinion about what the community does. Clearly this community is smart enough to realize that the subject is relevant. It seems like flagging was used to reflect a dislike of the subject, rather than to reflect its lack of relevance.
Sexism within startup culture is important for us to deal with.
Then the fact that Hacker News is unwilling to talk about it should be a topic of discussion. Did you really just say "HNers aren't ostriches, they just don't want to talk about sexism"? Because those statements seems wildly contradictory.
Flags seem to be heavily weighted. A very tiny number of users can easily take an article off the front page, and it doesn't matter if other flag-capable users think it should be there. The flagging mechanism is far too coarse to be treated as if it represents wide community opinion.
Comments
Not deleted, flagged. Folks who think an article is not HN material or useful can click the 'flag' button, enough flags and the article is made 'dead' which drops it out of consideration for ranking.
Right. I mention that in the post, I guess I could have phrased the title better.
The larger question is "why was it flagged?" There was a lively discussion on the topic, and it seems very relevant to the startup scene. The fact that this topic would be considered "not worthy" of HN speaks volumes by itself.
I see, the answer then is straight forward. You have interpreted the lively discussion as a signal that something is appropriate for HN, this is not the case. There are many things for which readers here would engage in lively discussions that are entirely outside the 'appropriateness' definitions.
A lively discussion only signals that many HN readers hold an opinion on the topic that is strong enough to relate, but that signal is perpendicular to a signal that would indicate appropriateness.
Well, no, I also mentioned that it was relevant for the startup scene. It involves a startup. There are lessons within to be learned about PR and handling complaints from users. It is of more relevance to startups than "Your boss shouldn't get your Facebook password".
It just seems like there are enough members of HN out there are unwilling to discuss a topic that makes them uncomfortable. Ostrich syndrome, indeed.
Are you seriously suggesting that the topic of sexism hasn't been discussed ad nauseum on HN?
What is your definition of ad nauseum? Are you really suggesting that the Geeklist story isn't worth discussing even once, because it falls under the banner "sexism" and is therefore all talked out?
This is an important subject that many users were invested in pursuing. Flagging should be reserved for abuses or instances where something is clearly problematic.
HN is a community oriented around startups. This was a good example of a bunch of issues pertaining to startups and startup culture.
It should not have been killed.
Just a minor clarification. If you are familiar with the concept behind auto-driven reputation type systems, of which HN and Reddit are good exemplars, then you will recognize that any story being flagged to death is not a reflection on the story or the topic or the even necessarily the submitter, it is instead a community expression that the community does not feel the material/topic/story is appropriate/relevant for this venue.
This system is like market economics where the price of something isn't "right" or "wrong" so much as the market mechanisms have set that price.
The message anyone should take from having something they submit getting flagged dead is that the community here is not interested in discussing it here which doesn't mean they are 'ostriches' or any other pejorative things, its just not the place.
The only other analogy I can come up with on the spur of the moment is if you are standing in a group and start talking about colo-rectal cancer and colonoscopies, and that group excuses themselves and moves elsewhere, it is more about the venue than the topic.
So don't take it personally, don't be disrepectful of the people here by calling them names, and take the discussion elsewhere. Its pretty simple, no conspiracies, no hidden agendas, nothing preventing you from talking up a storm in a community that wants to talk about it.
Err, I didn't call anyone anything or be disrespectful. I didn't take it personally. I just voiced an opinion about this case.
As a member of this community, I reserve the right to voice an opinion about what the community does. Clearly this community is smart enough to realize that the subject is relevant. It seems like flagging was used to reflect a dislike of the subject, rather than to reflect its lack of relevance.
Sexism within startup culture is important for us to deal with.
Then the fact that Hacker News is unwilling to talk about it should be a topic of discussion. Did you really just say "HNers aren't ostriches, they just don't want to talk about sexism"? Because those statements seems wildly contradictory.
Flags seem to be heavily weighted. A very tiny number of users can easily take an article off the front page, and it doesn't matter if other flag-capable users think it should be there. The flagging mechanism is far too coarse to be treated as if it represents wide community opinion.