Re:Analyzing HN moderation and censorship
by tptacek on Thursday October 19, 2017 @10:24AM
(#15508141)
Votes are a powerful signal here because they're the easiest signal to automate. That leads people to believe their HN votes are more sacred than they are. There has never been a point in the history of the site where it's ever been unclear that the site is ultimately run by the mods.
People complaining now should find someone who's been on here for a long time and ask what it was like under Paul Graham. Hint: not better.
Re:Analyzing HN moderation and censorship
by eropple on Thursday October 19, 2017 @10:52AM
(#15508409)
I've given the mods here some grief and I think there's a lot of room to improve, but Thomas is one hundred percent right here. Graham's I-don't-have-time-for-this moderation was a much, much worse thing for the community.
"Popular things go to the top" is a pretty good first approximation of the algorithm. You have things getting flagged to death for generating bad conversation/flamewars (kinda like parents telling kids to stop playing rough since people are getting hurt). There's the hiring posts. At least to me, it's always felt like moderation is happening at the margins.