Comment by dinkumthinkum
12 years ago
I think one compromise could be to remove this restriction from users with > x karma. It's not ideal to me but it is something ...
12 years ago
I think one compromise could be to remove this restriction from users with > x karma. It's not ideal to me but it is something ...
A bad comment is a bad comment whether I write it or a green-named user does. Jerkface.
This is why I think the anonymous idea above is a good add-on, if we have to have this system.
The number of bad comment is relatively low. And what kind of bad comments are we after?
Wow do I ever disagree with that. Comments on HN have gotten genuinely awful.
5 replies →
um ... ok. But the thing is I don't think this necessary so I would like some way for the echo chamber to not hold. Obviously, the ideal would be to not have the restriction. :)
It is, actually. Comments by users with over 10k karma go live immediately.
Really? Are you sure about that decision? If it were my site, I'd decide the other way, if only because I'd worry about the interaction between high-karma commenters that can rapid-fire respond and normal users who have to wait.
I don't think people will have to wait so much they'll notice, but we'll see.
Unfortunate, and I say that as a user with more than 10k karma. All comments should earn their endorsements on their own. High karma users are as capable of mean/stupid comments as anyone.
It looks like the number of users with >10k karma ≈ 0.3%[^1] Do you have any estimate of number of users >5k and >1k?
[^1]: https://hn-karma-tracker.herokuapp.com/overall
I like the intent.
Given that karma is a function of votes from articles posted as well as net votes from comments made, is there a way to use the second but not the first for karma limits related to comments?