Thanks e1ven - don't worry I don't scare that easily :-)
I don't know whether this helps at all, but I "read" HN for months through the RSS feed - so in a way I was not on HN at all, if HN is defined by reading the commentary and/or upvoting. But it was enough to give the vibe of the site, by the nature of the stories posted. Eventually I read something where I thought something like "Does whoever submitted this actually believe this ?!" and came back here to see the comments. I was pleasantly surprised by the S/N, so either it was not the kind of thread that was worrying you or you guys must have been intellectual saints before all the plebs showed up :-)
The point is that whether you realise this or not there are already two tiers of access to HN (full site and read-only). So you could chose to enforce some kind of social pressure on commentators (either through real identity or as another person has said through an invite system - I have seen the latter work well in other contexts) while still not turning HN into a private Y-combinator club.
It comes down to as to whether you folks feel that the essence of HN lies in the story selection or the commentary.
Obviously I don't have an opinion on that.
I hadn't considered the difference between just reading site site, and actively commenting- Admittedly, I myself don't comment as much as I ought to.
I certainly don't want to turn HN in a Y-combinator club- They rejected my application almost 2 year ago, after all ;)
"It comes down to as to whether you folks feel that the essence of HN lies in the story selection or the commentary."
I think this is the point PG and I disagree on a bit- His approach is to focus on moderation of the stories, and increasing their focus, where as I'm more concerned with the tone and caliber of discussion.
It's his site, so he gets to win that one ;) Hopefully community pressure can help to keep things inline- Past experience suggests that doing more is likely necessary.
I've offered my proposal for comments and had it rejected, but hopefully the discussion may help him (and us, collectively) find a solution that works better.
Comments
Thanks e1ven - don't worry I don't scare that easily :-)
I don't know whether this helps at all, but I "read" HN for months through the RSS feed - so in a way I was not on HN at all, if HN is defined by reading the commentary and/or upvoting. But it was enough to give the vibe of the site, by the nature of the stories posted. Eventually I read something where I thought something like "Does whoever submitted this actually believe this ?!" and came back here to see the comments. I was pleasantly surprised by the S/N, so either it was not the kind of thread that was worrying you or you guys must have been intellectual saints before all the plebs showed up :-)
The point is that whether you realise this or not there are already two tiers of access to HN (full site and read-only). So you could chose to enforce some kind of social pressure on commentators (either through real identity or as another person has said through an invite system - I have seen the latter work well in other contexts) while still not turning HN into a private Y-combinator club.
It comes down to as to whether you folks feel that the essence of HN lies in the story selection or the commentary. Obviously I don't have an opinion on that.
I hadn't considered the difference between just reading site site, and actively commenting- Admittedly, I myself don't comment as much as I ought to.
I certainly don't want to turn HN in a Y-combinator club- They rejected my application almost 2 year ago, after all ;)
"It comes down to as to whether you folks feel that the essence of HN lies in the story selection or the commentary."
I think this is the point PG and I disagree on a bit- His approach is to focus on moderation of the stories, and increasing their focus, where as I'm more concerned with the tone and caliber of discussion.
It's his site, so he gets to win that one ;) Hopefully community pressure can help to keep things inline- Past experience suggests that doing more is likely necessary.
I've offered my proposal for comments and had it rejected, but hopefully the discussion may help him (and us, collectively) find a solution that works better.