This feels unreasonable to me. It isn't like these are all the same political story. A lot of politics is legitimately happening very fast and "we can't talk about the next thing because we just talked about the last thing" is a structural weakness, not a benefit.
Are there other topics besides politics that regularly get flagged for being repetitive?
I agree—they're not all the same story. On the other hand: stories in an ongoing sequence usually lead to repetitive discussion, which is bad for HN—especially because people get angrier as they repeat things [1]. So the question is: how do we decide which stories should be treated as new discussions, worthy of major new threads, vs. repetitive follow-ups, which should be downweighted [2]?
HN has had a well-defined and stable set of principles for answering that for many years now. It goes back to the Snowden avalanche of 2013 [3], when the front page got overrun by follow-up stories and duplicate discussions, and there was a user backlash to that.
(I call these principles well defined and stable because they've held up well over the years, and because once we figured them out we haven't had to change them.)
It goes like this: when there's a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) [4], we try to reserve frontpage time for articles that contain Significant New Information (SNI) [5], and which seem like they have a chance to support a substantive, and substantively different, discussion. Articles which don't contain SNI, we tend to downweight as follow-ups [2].
This applies to flags too. When an article meets the above criteria but has been flagged by users, we're open to turning off the flags [6]. When an article has been flagged but doesn't meet those criteria, we tend to leave the flags on.
Sometimes, an article contains SNI but also is written in a way that seems to have no chance of supporting a substantive discussion, for example it's so inflammatory or one-sided that it seems doomed to instant flamewar. In cases like that, we wait for a more neutral article about the SNI. If the information really is significant, one should come along soon enough.
That is the answer to your objection here: "we can't talk about the next thing because we just talked about the last thing".
We can and do talk about the next thing, but it's a question of what the "next thing" is: how do you define what counts as a next thing (a new story) rather than a repetitive variation on the last thing [7]? We do that according to the principles I just described.
Of course, this shifts the question to "which articles contain SNI", and users frequently disagree about that. But I'm not talking here about specific calls on particular articles, but rather the principles by which we make those calls.
The specific calls we make are inevitably inconsistent and sometimes mistaken. That's ok; we can't be consistent at the level of individual cases (though we're consistent at the level of principles [8]), and we can't not make mistakes, but we're open to reversing a call when users make a good case for why an article meets the principles and we made a bad call about it.
To make such a case, you have to know what the principles are and make your argument based on them.
Most users don't do that—rather they post blanket complaints about how "all $FOO stories are suppressed on HN", the mods are imposing their pro-$FOO or anti-$FOO agenda, and so on. This is understandable as a reflexive response to seeing things one dislikes [9] (e.g. an important $FOO story being [flagged]). But it doesn't help us do a better job as moderators.
To help us do a better job, you (I don't mean you personally, but anyone) need to address what HN moderation is trying to achieve: what kind of site HN is supposed to be (optimized for intellectual curiosity [10], not current affairs [11]), what the fundamentals are (e.g. frontpage space is the scarcest resource [12] and we can't simply turn off flags on all political stories or even all important ones), and what the principles are, as I've described them above.
It's a structural necessity for a 30-ish things a day site vs an infinite-scroll-feed site. The world can definitely move a lot faster than a nerd messageboard that's closer in design and spirit to a crusty pokemon (or, dunno, planespotting) phpbb forum than to the news notification stream on your phone. But that's a desired feature for such places.
Right now I see one political thread on the front page. If the alternative to flagging is political threads dominating the front page then this suggests that 90%+ of political threads are flagged.
What do you find not right about it? In time of political turmoil, people start posting regular news stories to HN because there's a glut of big, activating political stories. They're still mostly offtopic so other people flag them. They seem like straightforward consequences of each other and the outlier cause driving it is the political climate itself not some particular weirdness of HN.
When I look at the number of flagged political topics on /active (often which have clear connection to the software industry) I still only see a couple. Going from one such post on the front page to three doesn't seem like it would ruin the front page.
Hang on, you've not responded to anything I've said and are just piling on the questions. You kinda have to address what this different HN would look like and how it would be different and/or better than the one now. Like, you say 'unreasonable', 'not right' and when the things you're talking about are explained, you just move on to something else. What specifically is unreasonable about 30 fp slots and users and moderators using repetition-reducing conventions? Why would it be 'not right' to have a nerd messageboard be, again, by convention, fairly light on regular news type news?
What would "glut" mean to you? [...] Why is "activation" bad? [...] clear connection to the software industry*
The first two are basic concepts of how HN works, there is endless mod commentary about them (i.e. repetition, high-dudgeonery, etc) and you're surely familiar with them after a near decade here. The last one is a common misconception but HN's remit is not 'things with a clear connection to the software industry'.
If you want a different HN, advocate for that different HN instead of having me explain the existing HN to you - you can get better explanations elsewhere, beside the fact you're already likely familiar with them.
My claim is that it would not be so different that the front page is inundated with these topics while also ensuring that people are more able to talk about these topics when they feel it is relevant without being stifled by individuals.
I believe that I am advocating for that different HN. I believe that flagging topics because "too many" other political topics have been submitted recently is bad and should stop.
My claim is that it would not be so different that the front page is inundated with these topics while also ensuring that people are more able to talk about these topics when they feel it is relevant without being stifled by individuals.
There's no evidence to suggest this claim is true and a great deal that that demonstrates it isn't. This has happened on HN several times and you were probably around for at least one of them.
I believe that I am advocating for that different HN. I believe that flagging topics because "too many" other political topics have been submitted recently is bad and should stop.
I, too, believe that you are. What is not clear to me on why you believe these things and how they would improve HN. Like, you know the design of HN because a) you're using it b) it's been explained a bunch plus there's ready access to lots more. What's your design? How is this going to work, what part of HN has to be changed and what consequences do you think that would have? What about the kind of consequences the current design tries to avoid? "I'd like more of these stories on the fp" is not that, it's just a statement of preference.
I believe that meaningful evidence is examining the volume of flagged submissions on /new and /active and noting that it is not zero but also not overwhelming.
You do you, I guess. I think that the community and industry is impoverished by these topics being limited in this manner.
What is that evidence of, other than that lots of people are submitting political stories, and that if we didn't have the moderation we have now, the front page would be nothing but those stories? It seems like you're making his point for him.
Comments
This feels unreasonable to me. It isn't like these are all the same political story. A lot of politics is legitimately happening very fast and "we can't talk about the next thing because we just talked about the last thing" is a structural weakness, not a benefit.
Are there other topics besides politics that regularly get flagged for being repetitive?
I agree—they're not all the same story. On the other hand: stories in an ongoing sequence usually lead to repetitive discussion, which is bad for HN—especially because people get angrier as they repeat things [1]. So the question is: how do we decide which stories should be treated as new discussions, worthy of major new threads, vs. repetitive follow-ups, which should be downweighted [2]?
HN has had a well-defined and stable set of principles for answering that for many years now. It goes back to the Snowden avalanche of 2013 [3], when the front page got overrun by follow-up stories and duplicate discussions, and there was a user backlash to that.
(I call these principles well defined and stable because they've held up well over the years, and because once we figured them out we haven't had to change them.)
It goes like this: when there's a Major Ongoing Topic (MOT) [4], we try to reserve frontpage time for articles that contain Significant New Information (SNI) [5], and which seem like they have a chance to support a substantive, and substantively different, discussion. Articles which don't contain SNI, we tend to downweight as follow-ups [2].
This applies to flags too. When an article meets the above criteria but has been flagged by users, we're open to turning off the flags [6]. When an article has been flagged but doesn't meet those criteria, we tend to leave the flags on.
Sometimes, an article contains SNI but also is written in a way that seems to have no chance of supporting a substantive discussion, for example it's so inflammatory or one-sided that it seems doomed to instant flamewar. In cases like that, we wait for a more neutral article about the SNI. If the information really is significant, one should come along soon enough.
That is the answer to your objection here: "we can't talk about the next thing because we just talked about the last thing".
We can and do talk about the next thing, but it's a question of what the "next thing" is: how do you define what counts as a next thing (a new story) rather than a repetitive variation on the last thing [7]? We do that according to the principles I just described.
Of course, this shifts the question to "which articles contain SNI", and users frequently disagree about that. But I'm not talking here about specific calls on particular articles, but rather the principles by which we make those calls.
The specific calls we make are inevitably inconsistent and sometimes mistaken. That's ok; we can't be consistent at the level of individual cases (though we're consistent at the level of principles [8]), and we can't not make mistakes, but we're open to reversing a call when users make a good case for why an article meets the principles and we made a bad call about it.
To make such a case, you have to know what the principles are and make your argument based on them.
Most users don't do that—rather they post blanket complaints about how "all $FOO stories are suppressed on HN", the mods are imposing their pro-$FOO or anti-$FOO agenda, and so on. This is understandable as a reflexive response to seeing things one dislikes [9] (e.g. an important $FOO story being [flagged]). But it doesn't help us do a better job as moderators.
To help us do a better job, you (I don't mean you personally, but anyone) need to address what HN moderation is trying to achieve: what kind of site HN is supposed to be (optimized for intellectual curiosity [10], not current affairs [11]), what the fundamentals are (e.g. frontpage space is the scarcest resource [12] and we can't simply turn off flags on all political stories or even all important ones), and what the principles are, as I've described them above.
---
[1] The mind resorts to indignation to amuse itself in the absence of new information - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] We tend to downweight follow-ups - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[3] The Snowden deluge of 2013 taught us how (not) to moderate a Major Ongoing Topic - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[4] For a Major Ongoing Topic, some but not all submissions should have major threads - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[5] The primary criterion for a new major thread is Significant New Information - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
[6] How we think about turning off flags on a story - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[7] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306
[8] Moderation is inconsistent at the level of individual posts, but consistent at the level of principles - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[9] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[10] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[11] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
[12] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
It's a structural necessity for a 30-ish things a day site vs an infinite-scroll-feed site. The world can definitely move a lot faster than a nerd messageboard that's closer in design and spirit to a crusty pokemon (or, dunno, planespotting) phpbb forum than to the news notification stream on your phone. But that's a desired feature for such places.
Right now I see one political thread on the front page. If the alternative to flagging is political threads dominating the front page then this suggests that 90%+ of political threads are flagged.
Doesn't sound right to me.
What do you find not right about it? In time of political turmoil, people start posting regular news stories to HN because there's a glut of big, activating political stories. They're still mostly offtopic so other people flag them. They seem like straightforward consequences of each other and the outlier cause driving it is the political climate itself not some particular weirdness of HN.
What would "glut" mean to you?
When I look at the number of flagged political topics on /active (often which have clear connection to the software industry) I still only see a couple. Going from one such post on the front page to three doesn't seem like it would ruin the front page.
Why is "activation" bad?
Hang on, you've not responded to anything I've said and are just piling on the questions. You kinda have to address what this different HN would look like and how it would be different and/or better than the one now. Like, you say 'unreasonable', 'not right' and when the things you're talking about are explained, you just move on to something else. What specifically is unreasonable about 30 fp slots and users and moderators using repetition-reducing conventions? Why would it be 'not right' to have a nerd messageboard be, again, by convention, fairly light on regular news type news?
What would "glut" mean to you? [...] Why is "activation" bad? [...] clear connection to the software industry*
The first two are basic concepts of how HN works, there is endless mod commentary about them (i.e. repetition, high-dudgeonery, etc) and you're surely familiar with them after a near decade here. The last one is a common misconception but HN's remit is not 'things with a clear connection to the software industry'.
If you want a different HN, advocate for that different HN instead of having me explain the existing HN to you - you can get better explanations elsewhere, beside the fact you're already likely familiar with them.
I think I did address it.
My claim is that it would not be so different that the front page is inundated with these topics while also ensuring that people are more able to talk about these topics when they feel it is relevant without being stifled by individuals.
I believe that I am advocating for that different HN. I believe that flagging topics because "too many" other political topics have been submitted recently is bad and should stop.
What would
My claim is that it would not be so different that the front page is inundated with these topics while also ensuring that people are more able to talk about these topics when they feel it is relevant without being stifled by individuals.
There's no evidence to suggest this claim is true and a great deal that that demonstrates it isn't. This has happened on HN several times and you were probably around for at least one of them.
I believe that I am advocating for that different HN. I believe that flagging topics because "too many" other political topics have been submitted recently is bad and should stop.
I, too, believe that you are. What is not clear to me on why you believe these things and how they would improve HN. Like, you know the design of HN because a) you're using it b) it's been explained a bunch plus there's ready access to lots more. What's your design? How is this going to work, what part of HN has to be changed and what consequences do you think that would have? What about the kind of consequences the current design tries to avoid? "I'd like more of these stories on the fp" is not that, it's just a statement of preference.
I believe that meaningful evidence is examining the volume of flagged submissions on /new and /active and noting that it is not zero but also not overwhelming.
You do you, I guess. I think that the community and industry is impoverished by these topics being limited in this manner.
What is that evidence of, other than that lots of people are submitting political stories, and that if we didn't have the moderation we have now, the front page would be nothing but those stories? It seems like you're making his point for him.