←back to thread

Two HN Announcements

(blog.ycombinator.com)
698 points tilt | 3 comments | 29 Sep 15 18:40 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
minimaxir ◴[29 Sep 15 18:47 UTC] No.10298576[source]▶
Very promising announcements, Sam and Dan, although I have a few questions:

1) How does spinning out YC as its own service affect a) the job posting system and b) the YC class qualifiers in submission titles? / What does "editorial independence" mean in the context of his announcement? YC submissions had a lot of points, true, but I had thought that was attributed to the high YC user base.

2) Will users be able to vouch for [flagged] submissions in addition to [dead] submissions?

3) Due to the vouch system, will the use of banning in general be readdressed, since there is now a way to address false positives/negatives? Shadowbanning was implemented at Reddit as a last resort (that the new CEO wants to remove), and it isn't respectful to the user to not know if they are banned.

EDIT: Reordered to match dang's responses.

replies(2): >>10298624 #>>10298720 #
1. dang ◴[29 Sep 15 18:55 UTC] No.10298624[source]▶
Doesn't affect (1) at all. As Sam mentioned, this is formalizing the de facto structure that's been in place a long time, so that announcement doesn't come with any changes to how HN works.

(2) Absolutely. Users can vouch for anything that's dead, including [flagged] and [dupe]. I see the notational confusion there; will ask Sam to update the post.

(3) Probably, but I'm not sure I agree with the line you're drawing from vouching to banning. Today's release massively lowers the cost an account of being banned. Instead of having your comments always stay [dead], they're now up for review by your fellow HNers; the community can decide what's good and bad. I'm not sure 'banned' is even the right word for it now— 'under moderation' would be closer.

The reason I say 'probably' above and not simply 'yes' is that there are a ton of issues to consider about it.

replies(1): >>10299204 #
2. erik-n ◴[29 Sep 15 20:05 UTC] No.10299204[source]▶
>Users can vouch for anything that's dead, including [flagged] and [duped]. I see the notational confusion there; will ask Sam to update the post.

If you were to rename the "duped" label, may I suggest "nuked"?

replies(1): >>10299221 #
3. dang ◴[29 Sep 15 20:07 UTC] No.10299221[source]▶
Whoops, I meant of course [dupe], not [duped] (fixed now). The traditional pg shorthand for duplicate. Not likely to change!