←back to thread

Two HN Announcements

(blog.ycombinator.com)
698 points tilt | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
raldi ◴[] No.10298588[source]
> If we notice abusive vouches, we'll take away vouching rights

That might scare some people away from vouching. Could you clarify whether it'll be more like, "If you wrongly vouch for even one single thing, we'll silently and permanently remove your vouching ability forever with no possible recourse" or more like, "If you show a repeated pattern of bad vouching, we'll reach out to you and explain what you're doing wrong, and only if it continues, take away your vouching privileges as a last resort, perhaps only temporarily" (or somewhere in between those extremes)?

P.S. I couldn't be happier to hear about Dan's promotion. He has an expert touch for community management, and (I learned after an opportunity to join him for beers one night) some deep wisdom on the subject, too.

replies(3): >>10298625 #>>10298648 #>>10298968 #
dang ◴[] No.10298648[source]
Please don't worry about this. It really is just like flagging. We only take away flagging rights if someone repeatedly misuses them—never for one random thing.

I wouldn't have even included the bit about taking away vouching rights except I know that the question "What if people just vouch for all the bad comments" was going to come up otherwise.

(Also, I don't think I've been promoted? But thanks—that's particularly meaningful coming from a seasoned veteran of the early Reddit...)

replies(6): >>10298687 #>>10298761 #>>10298834 #>>10299345 #>>10300168 #>>10304498 #
kragen ◴[] No.10298761[source]
Are you saying you'll be more reluctant to take away flagging rights than to take away commenting rights? Or do you feel that everyone who's been shadowbanned has in fact repeatedly misused their commenting rights?
replies(3): >>10298797 #>>10299079 #>>10301820 #
lambda ◴[] No.10301820[source]
In the original article here, they discuss how the reason for this feature is that some people get shadowbanned a little too aggressively. "Banned accounts sometimes post good comments, software filters sometimes have false positives, and users sometimes flag things unfairly."

It seems to me the whole point of the vouch features is to have an easier recourse for other commenters to respond to people being shadowbanned (or otherwise dead for mistaken reasons, like tripping a filter or unfairly flagged by other users), rather than actually having to find the mod email and send an out of band message.

replies(1): >>10301986 #
1. dang ◴[] No.10301986[source]
The problem is more complicated than that. Many banned accounts' comments aren't all bad. Unbanning them wholesale isn't an option if they're still going to break the HN guidelines. But killing all their comments wholesale isn't great either, if sometimes they post valuable things. So what we want is a mechanism that works at comment granularity rather than account granularity: let the good comments, and only the good comments, through. That's what this is intended to be.