There's something like a "scrolling cost" -- people are only willing to skim so much of a comments thread, without seeing something interesting to them, before closing it.
This is why HN dislikes humorous fluff-posts: they both easily rise to the top, and encourage humorous fluff-replies, which means the first few screenfuls of comments will be guaranteed to induce the kind of "scroll-pain" that makes people close the tab.
I think there's a difference between a constructive conversation and a flame war.
If the worry is that comment threads are too long, HN could implement something like reddit, where you click to read additional comments in a long thread.
Two commenters X,Y with sub-threshold karma (<1,000) could never have a dialogue (two-way, real-time) as a third party Z would need to endorse their each and every comment.
Two commenters X,Y (Karma 1,000+ each) in substantially different timezones with a-synchronous dialogue (eg, overnight replies) would need a third party z to endorse each and every comment (at least until the other wakes up).
Two commenters X,Y (Karma 1,000+ each) with opposing views, could never have a real-time dialogue without a third party z to endorse each and every comment (unless #)
Hopefully these are at least helpful to dilineate.
I think for what HN aims to be, keeping everything public is a good thing. I seem to find quite a few "one-on-one" threads that get the occasional input from a third,fourth,fifth participant -- and also a few I find interesting even if I'm not participating.
When everyone knows that what's being discussed is public, it tends to keep the tone more conversational and clear -- I think. The "feel free to contact me, email in profile"-response seems to work well enough for those that do want a private (albeit not anonymous) conversation?
To kill conversations which are deemed useful by all participants and have no negative impact other than the negligible cost of hosting them?
There's something like a "scrolling cost" -- people are only willing to skim so much of a comments thread, without seeing something interesting to them, before closing it.
This is why HN dislikes humorous fluff-posts: they both easily rise to the top, and encourage humorous fluff-replies, which means the first few screenfuls of comments will be guaranteed to induce the kind of "scroll-pain" that makes people close the tab.
Fair enough. I would much prefer fixing the long comment thread problem with 5 lines of JavaScript than implementing this bizarre system.
5 replies →
The solution to this is to allow collapsing uninteresting comment threads. I use this all the time on Reddit.
4 replies →
I could be wrong, but I don't think this site is supposed to be for "useful conversations".
I think there's a difference between a constructive conversation and a flame war.
If the worry is that comment threads are too long, HN could implement something like reddit, where you click to read additional comments in a long thread.
If purging (substantial and interesting) one-to-one conversation is an intended effect I think that'd be a shame.
No, that's not intended. If it happens we'll fix it.
This would be great to keep an eye on.
eg:
Two commenters X,Y with sub-threshold karma (<1,000) could never have a dialogue (two-way, real-time) as a third party Z would need to endorse their each and every comment.
Two commenters X,Y (Karma 1,000+ each) in substantially different timezones with a-synchronous dialogue (eg, overnight replies) would need a third party z to endorse each and every comment (at least until the other wakes up).
Two commenters X,Y (Karma 1,000+ each) with opposing views, could never have a real-time dialogue without a third party z to endorse each and every comment (unless #)
Hopefully these are at least helpful to dilineate.
# "Thank you sir, can I have another".
Adding a "private message" feature could solve this for all the people who don't want to give a public e-mail in their profile.
I think for what HN aims to be, keeping everything public is a good thing. I seem to find quite a few "one-on-one" threads that get the occasional input from a third,fourth,fifth participant -- and also a few I find interesting even if I'm not participating.
When everyone knows that what's being discussed is public, it tends to keep the tone more conversational and clear -- I think. The "feel free to contact me, email in profile"-response seems to work well enough for those that do want a private (albeit not anonymous) conversation?
There's a huge difference between doing that on the front page and doing that on an article that's already 3 days old.