Comment by slg
5 months ago
Yes, I understand that. But you are missing the point of my comment.
From the FAQ:
>The basic algorithm divides points by a power of the time since a story was submitted. Comments in threads are ranked the same way.
> Other factors affecting rank include user flags, anti-abuse software, software which demotes overheated discussions, account or site weighting, and moderator action.
You are effectively just turning off one aspect of this, the flags, and declaring mission accomplished when obviously there are other things contributing to these stories falling off the front page faster than many people think they should. People care about the outcome, not the specific button you are pushing on the backend to accomplish that outcome.
This story now has more points than anything posted on the site in the last 24 hours and it is currently halfway down the front page. People clearly think this is an important topic worthy of the site and discussion in a way that isn't in line with the HN ranking algorithm. My original point was that if you agree that stories like this have a place on the front page of HN, turning off the flagging isn't always enough to counteract the other factors at play that drop these posts in the HN rankings.
Hmm we seem to be missing each other a bit here. My point is that I'm fine with this article being on the front page of HN today, and I'm not fine with it being at #1 or #2 on the front page. Both of those are moderation calls. Does that help clarify?
I view a "moderation call" as a binary allow or disallow. Once you get to the point of personally deciding that a post is good enough for the front page but not good enough for #1 or #2, you are making editorial decisions.
I tried to make it clear that I am talking about more than this individual post. That is why I used phrases like "these stories" and "stories like this". In an attempt to stop us from "missing each other", I'll be as direct as possible. The visibility of what is likely the most important ongoing story in the US at the moment should be up to more than just whether you personally are "fine with this article being on the front page of HN today".
Ok, that explains the misunderstanding. From my point of view it's not binary, and yes it's an editorial decision. Moderating and editoring (not a word) are more or less the same thing, no?
> The visibility of what is likely the most important ongoing story in the US at the moment should be up to more than just whether you personally are "fine with this article being on the front page of HN today".
I may have misled you with the phrases "I'm fine with" and "I'm not fine with", which were admittedly a little glib. I'm not applying my personal preferences here. (I'm not even sure what those are—the only strong preference I'm aware of is to try to minimize the pain of masses of people being upset.)
Rather, I'm taking in what the community and software inputs are producing, and then modulating that according to HN principles in an effort to optimize the site for its intended purpose. I wish it weren't necessary—it would so much less work, not to mention less painful—but unfortunately the community system (upvotes and flags) doesn't do this on its own, and there's only so much that software can do, so human intervention is still needed to jig the system out of its failure modes.
3 replies →