←back to thread

Hacker News Guidelines

(news.ycombinator.com)
446 points tonmoy | 10 comments | 24 Aug 23 16:25 UTC | HN request time: 1.144s | source | bottom
Show context
naillo ◴[24 Aug 23 17:24 UTC] No.37251836[source]▶
The only one I subtly disagree with is "comments should be substantive". What it discourages I think is comments like "thanks" or other really 'unsubstantive' comments. It's true that maybe it adds noise, and in many cases are maybe supposed to be inferred without explicitly saying. But I think discouraging this slightly leans behaviour towards snark vs not. (If you see comments like "thanks" you're less likely to be snarky than if you see 'substantive' but maybe too harsh critiques in the comments that appear because "cool project!" isn't allowed.)

Personally I like to make it a point to break this rule from time to time to reduce this pattern.

replies(12): >>37251866 #>>37252101 #>>37252405 #>>37252434 #>>37252476 #>>37252568 #>>37253398 #>>37253501 #>>37255359 #>>37255767 #>>37258602 #>>37270905 #
1. 1123581321 ◴[24 Aug 23 17:41 UTC] No.37252101[source]▶
Same. I think it's especially important to thank someone when they might otherwise assume you'll want to pick apart with their response to you, after you've asked them to write it.

One feature I've thought of would be for someone in a conversation thread to know if the other participant upvoted their last comment. Giving someone an upvote and not replying would send a strong positive signal without taking up more space.

replies(3): >>37252326 #>>37252413 #>>37254090 #
2. SushiHippie ◴[24 Aug 23 17:55 UTC] No.37252326[source]▶
That is okay Comment from dang: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37030249
replies(1): >>37259801 #
3. sanderjd ◴[24 Aug 23 18:02 UTC] No.37252413[source]▶
I'd really love a separate "thanks" interface element that only the person you replied to can use.
replies(1): >>37254941 #
4. zogrodea ◴[24 Aug 23 20:25 UTC] No.37254090[source]▶
That suggestion about upvoting might work. It has less of a human element than a typed/written reply though (instead of someone typing text to express positive intent, it's someone incrementing a number to express positive intent), and it does sound more desolate/lonely from that perspective. Although I don't know how much it matters.

Here's an exchange from a book I thought of while typing this comment, to illustrate my meaning.

`But he could not resist the temptation to speak and to awaken a little human warmth around him. “A pity for the car,” he said. “Foreign cars cost quite a bit of gold, and after half a year on our roads they are finished.” “There you are quite right. Our roads are very backward,” said the old official. By his tone Rubashov realized that he had understood his helplessness. He felt like a dog to whom one had just thrown a bone; he decided not to speak again.`

replies(1): >>37257726 #
5. noduerme ◴[24 Aug 23 21:44 UTC] No.37254941[source]▶
This. Perhaps even with a very short note attached, visible to the person you're thanking but not visible in the main thread.
6. mook ◴[25 Aug 23 03:36 UTC] No.37257726[source]▶
A lone "thanks" doesn't seem to contain very much human element in it either, though; that just feels like somebody wanted to make a comment but couldn't be bothered to provide detail. What specifically are they thanking? Does the link make their life a little better (and if yes, how, so that others could emulate making more people's lives better)? If it was in reply to a comment, did they just read it or actually try whatever it was?

I think I dislike it because it reminds me of the busy exec replying with a single word, and that is definitely lacking in humanity.

replies(1): >>37258335 #
7. zogrodea ◴[25 Aug 23 05:15 UTC] No.37258335{3}[source]▶
That's true. Curtness does often sound negative. That's a good point I hadn't considered.
8. permo-w ◴[25 Aug 23 09:41 UTC] No.37259801[source]▶
whether it's allowed or not is probably less pertinent than whether it'll get downvoted. I've never seen a flagged comment that was just "thanks", but I suspect I probably have seen a heavily downvoted one, although I can't think of a specific example
replies(1): >>37282956 #
9. SushiHippie ◴[27 Aug 23 14:18 UTC] No.37282956{3}[source]▶
That's why dang raises awareness that this is allowed, because most of the people (i guess) downvote because they think it is against the guidelines.
replies(1): >>37302529 #
10. permo-w ◴[29 Aug 23 01:42 UTC] No.37302529{4}[source]▶
fair