did you even read it? it says nothing of the sort

Would you kindly stop breaking the site guidelines? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately, and we've had to ask you repeatedly not to.

In this case you broke this one: "Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.""

More generally, you've been breaking this one: "Be kind. Don't be snarky."

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

There has been a lot of press around the HN moderation, mostly shock at the small size of the team doing it, but also around the bigger point, which is the care that HN shows about keeping its community in some sort of order.

I've built and run huge online communities in the past, and they have died by 1000 paper cuts. Little bits of snark building up like fat on the walls of an artery until the clot ruptures. I've tried installing moderators I trusted, but without exception each one would turn into a fascist dictator stomping on accounts until everyone feared to speak. I had to fire them all.

The biggest problem here is that HN moderators are not replicable or replaceable. There is a quote I can't find about how the type of person who wants to be a politician is exactly the sort you don't want. The reason HN mods are so good is because they didn't want the job, they fell into it.

But it also has to be heartbreaking work, like those in the Third World who moderate the main social networks watching beheadings and child abuse all day. Eventually it will take its toll and I don't know how the fuck HN will operate when it has to find replacements.

I thought of some things to say in response to this but I'm late for a training I'm in. Hopefully I'll remember to come back here later.

I'm interested.

I'm sorry - I just ran out of time and steam. It's a constant challenge.

The topic will come up again sometime though.

No worries, I know you're busy, and the last couple of weeks must have been especially draining. You don't owe me the satisfaction of my curiosity. (And, just in case there's any misunderstanding, I am possibly the person worst suited for helping out with moderation that I know, so I'm not offering help --- though I wish I could.)

My apologies. I haven't been in the best of moods lately. I will stick more firmly to the guidelines in the future. I really appreciate the civility of the discussion here compared to the rest of the net, and I want to keep it that way.

No to be preachy, but if you’re struggling a lot make sure you’re doing enough self care, I like long walks, it’s so easy to forget to make time when so much is happening in the world.

appreciate calling out middle brow dismissals which is a uniquely hn problem and probably too subjective to write a policy against

That is hardly a "uniquely hn problem", that is a human nature problem! And there is a good guideline against it:

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

That's a direct reference to pg's original concept of middlebrow dismissal. We just changed the word from 'middlebrow' to 'shallow' because the word 'middlebrow' often comes across as a putdown and also often comes across as labeling a person rather than a post.

Commenters who've actually read an article are always welcome to respond with accurate, interesting information from the article. That's a fine contribution. What's not fine is the "did you even read the article" internet trope.

To help contextualize this response: The entire opening of the article feels like an extremely heavy handed introduction to "Photography 103 - Focal Length and How to Use It" without ever really explaining focal length even while a basic understanding of focal length & "compression" remains relevant to the topic the article veers into.

They do have a point. It's just "beating around the bush" so much. Focal length, distortion, projection. I guess I'm just too cranky for it.

I should have been more clear. I'm basically agreeing with you. It feels like the article is constantly about to say something like "Here's an example where I used a 50mm and you can see how much more closely it matches the painting and my recollection" or something like that before then going on to talk about how perspective in photography is essentially a tradeoff with field-of-view. But it... just doesn't do that and so ends up with this awkward feeling mismatch with reader expectation (for me, at least).

I don't necessarily begrudge the article for it but I do share your frustration.

Yeah, I got that!