Comment by tomhow
2 months ago
Mathematical quality scoring doesn’t work well for moderation of human behaviour in a community. Context matters a lot. Feelings influence people’s conduct and perception of others’ conduct a great deal. A user may get huge numbers of upvotes for comments they make about a technology or their profession, but then attract many downvotes and flags when they're commenting about politics. This is particularly true when political topics involve war or other life/death matters (which is a major reason why those kinds of topics are difficult on HN – they can bring out the worst in otherwise very positive contributors).
Sheesh. I meant that as a step 1 to get a list of suspect users, and then you read the users comments to see if they're all breaking the rules. (The same thing you'd do if you get a report of a user being "moronic" over email)
We already go further than that: we try to look at every single flagged comment, and for any that are egregious, we look further into their history and consider banning them. In this discussion, however, you’re asserting that there are many accounts that should be banned but aren’t, but you won’t name any. We can understand feeling that way, but we can only respond to concrete examples and actionable suggestions.
Plenty of users help us by emailing us about egregious accounts that they notice, and you’re most welcome to do that too. We can take action or reply to you explaining our interpretation of their activity in relation to the guidelines. We’re always happy to explain our thinking once we have a specific example to discuss.