I think that many times, many of us have a post all typed up...then we reconsider how well it adds value to the conversation, and close the tab, thus not posting something of lower value, that we would normally be just fine posting elsewhere.

That act of self-censorship (or just plain quality control) is a big part of it, in my opinion.

I only actually post less than half of the time these days. I'd nuke this one too, but then I do want to make the point, so here goes.

I used to do that on a previous account, but after a while you stop caring about karma and just post stuff. Just need to get enough intuition to post things that on average gets upvotes, at that point downvotes no longer matters except as an indicator that someone didn't like what you posted.

Is this culture of 'high quality posting' inspired from other high quality posts, instilled from the voting mechanism, from up/down voting or from the FAQ?

How come much smaller Facebook groups have a tendency to devolve into a mess, but something as large as HN doesn't?

People on HN constantly talk about the high quality. Nobody wants to be the one who started a shitposting trend that ruins it all.

Also, there are no other "subreddits" with close ties. It's similar to old forums from the 2000s.

Even when forums had useless drama, at least they still had community.

Facebook and reddit pick up the culture of the sites in general, so almost everything has clickbaits and dick jokes everywhere.

>How come much smaller Facebook groups have a tendency to devolve into a mess, but something as large as HN doesn't?

Facebook has an algorithm optimizing what you see for their purposes. It tends to preferentially show emotionally charged content, to try to increase "engagement". Needless to say, this is not conducive to calm, rational, discussions on that platform.

I can look my Reddit comment history and know that this is truth.

Ditto on your last comment as well. If not for this conversation, I don't think I would even admit to having a Reddit account around these parts.

Reddit seems to be mostly circle jerks to me, there is very little tolerance for two sided arguments. On HN two sides can exist in one thread since downvotes are restricted while upvotes are not, meaning that both sides can upvotes whatever they feel is good and therefore we get rich discussions.

Yes, but it still doesn't explain bad actors.

If the signal to noise ratio is better, bad actors stick out more, and we're all not fatigued too much to deal with it.

Lots of behind the scenes work by dang & Company, assisted by community members pointing out accounts, sites and comments that are or that seem problematic, assisted by a bunch of automation. Agreed that it works surprisingly well, especially given the scale.

Is there an in depth explanation of it? I think other communities might also benefit from learning how to do so (assuming the information won't harm this community).

As would spammers, so no.

Other than the outstanding moderators, I think that there are a lot of contributors on here who appreciate the focus and don’t want to see another failed forum. I really enjoy this haven of good sense and intellectually stimulating content.

It's entirely possible to appreciate the focus, and desperately want to not have the forum fail, yet still kind of undermine the whole thing. If I honestly held election denial opinions, for example, I could post in complete good faith and still cause chaos.

That is: contributors motivations can be pure, their hearts can be pure, and they could still end up undermining the HN discourse.

To the extent that HN maintains high quality, it's not the contributor's purity.

That's the heart of 'eternal September' right there.

Right, obviously most post-first wave communities don't set out to destroy the work of their predecessors and hosts. It's more ignorant than malicious. And sometimes change is even good.

Sir, I was answering honestly and in good faith.

I was pointing out a problem of logic in the comment to which I replied.

Yes, as was mine. Read it as: You have pointed out the heart of Eternal September.

This is a very good point. I should clarify that I meant that responsible contributors were helping to “watch” for inappropriate content and comments as opposed to posting “good” content. Your point stands on its own, as does the Eternal September comments below. Thanks.

I have (and still am) part of many toxic communities where I get my dose of dopamine with various forms of trolling and indecent behavior.

But I also crave intellectual discussion and learning, since I am passionate about programming and social science. I have witnessed the spiral of many communities into low-grade discussion, moderation abuse and eventual death, so I feel responsible for maintaining the quality and health of this forum. Many times I have misbehaved, I was given a gentle warning instead of a straight-up ban, which made me feel like the moderators care about the users, which led me to be less motivated about causing chaos.

It's really similar to eating a burger vs. eating a nice home cooked meal with a salad, I go to 4chan when I crave the "burger" and I come here for the steak and salad.

There is spam, you just have to set showdead to "yes" in your settings and look at /newest.

Most of the spam is worthless filler akin to a Youtube video showing how to install an adblocker. Sometimes it's the same quality that you might find in your email's spam folder.

HN is the last bastion of good reading on the internet not populated by ads . Please never ever have ads. I wish for a world where technology and the internet has not been taken over by ads. Thank you for all the great work you guys do.

There is pretty severe rate-limiting. I've never tried to figure out the exact rates, and it's possible they vary per-user based on some opaque historical factors, but whatever they are, they're low. Try to post 40 articles in a row and it won't let you. Combine that with the fact that new accounts can't submit anything, and that takes care of a lot of low-hanging fruit with respect to spam prevention.

But it isn't 100% spam free. It's just free of the really obvious things usually plaguing blogs with no filters on comments offering Viagra and work-from-home MLM schemes. But a whole lot of content is submitted that pretends to be more or less objective analysis of some tech problem but is really a thinly-veiled ad for a service solving that problem, or criticism of something posted by a competitor. And CEOs/founders are constantly out there shilling for their own crap in comments as answers to user queries. That kind of thing tends to get downvoted and/or flagged quickly, but it's still there.

Because it is still tied to the original purpose of the site. Being an offshoot of ycombinator means the focus never shifts and it doesn't have to follow trends, it just is a place to talk about tech and tech startups.

It doesn't have to update the ui to stay popular with young people, it doesn't need to have a crisis moment or pivot to a new idea. It can't be replaced by a tech alternative as it's not in competition with other forums for eyeballs and income.

It's not really run like a business, I guess.

Compared to 10-12 years ago, I don't honestly believe it has the same high quality.

I remember there being a lot less political discussions back then, remember when every non programming thread had a guy referencing the site rules saying it should be removed? I think political discussions reduces the quality of the site, not because they aren't interesting but because it is so easy to farm karma in them that we now have many high karma accounts that aren't experts in some field.

Promoting the site by cooperating with non-technical, highly political publications surely has consequences.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/th...

There’s plenty of spam, though it might not be seen as such.

For some time now I believe the austere UI and features (everything that is needed though) helps keep the high quality of the content.

TONS of good techniques for preventing voting rings. It's quite hard (ofc some aggressively self-promotional stuff still comes through)

It doesn't-and doesn't need to-make money.

I don't see the link between making money and being spam free, can you please expand on this?

Monetized platforms tend to put a lot of focus on user "engagement" because that's generally where the money's at. Quantity over quality is usually more profitable.

I still don't follow. The question was about spam, not about advertising, or do I misunderstand you?

Being downvoted discourages continued "engagement".

I'll be dang'd if I know.

it's good quality (relative to other sites) but there is a lot of arrogance to weed through.

If you're going to make criticisms like this, it would be helpful to include specific links to cases where you think moderators got something wrong. That would let readers make up their own minds, and would also give us a chance to review possible mistakes.

I don't know which political prejudices you think you're observing. People make very conflicting, indeed opposite, claims about that. (No, that's not a both-sides argument. It's just an empirical observation—in fact an extremely well-established one.)

Bullshit. The HN mods get crapped on from all sides, which is typically an indication that you're doing ok.

I often post contrarian but respectful opinions here on HN. I basically disagree with half of the ideologies, concepts and discussions here. Usually, that leads to downvotes which is fine. I've gotten used to it. It does bother me when there are no responses but only downvotes. I am always curious why people disagree and whether it is based on reason/logic/facts or simply ideological or if there was a flaw in my own opinion.

We should encourage people that challenge conventional thinking especially when it is unpopular, that's an essential catalyst in a healthy society.

Yeah if it’s “bullshit” try posting some controversial political opinions here, even when they’re related to the topic, and let me know the link to the comment. It will be hidden/dead/buried/flagged.

1. Posting mere opinion without evidence is non-constructive and deserves downvote. From HN guidelines: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle".

2. It's not dang@ doing the down-voting.

I'll note that getting crapped on from all sides isn't always a good indicator. See: mainstream media since 2015 or so.

'mainstream media' being crapped on is mostly from the extremist right. They see everything as having a left wing bias whereas all it means is that when you're at the North Pole everything else will be South of where you are.

I think US "mainstream media" does have a left bias, although not necessarily very strong. (Disclosure: I consider myself probably a slightly right of center, but definitely left of Fox) Personally, I consider "mainstream media" to be the following: NYT, WaPo, USA Today, WSJ, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, Fox. (You could argue Time, Newsweek, Reuters, but I haven't heard of anyone reading Time/Newsweek in years, and Reuters is more news for news orgs and not directly accessed by consumers). I think when people say "mainstream media is left" they mean politically. According to [1], all of that list is left except for WSJ (center) and Fox (right), so 80% of "mainstream media" is left.

If you want to argue that people mean that more broadly, [2] gives mainly the same result, except that few become center-left.

I would certainly not call anything on the right side of middle in either of those graphics mainstream besides WSJ and Fox. (And frankly, I think it's arguable whether those two are mainstream) So for the US, anyway, it does seem credible that "mainstream media" leans left.

[1] https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

[2] https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_St...

That allsides chart is a bit weird. Poltico as left slanted!?! With all due respect, as a complete and utter centrist, the NYT and WaPo are hardly left of center. NYT gave very favorable to Trump, and disfavorable to Clinton coverage all through 2016.

Going a little further back, NYT sat on the NSA dragnet surveillance story (Risen and Lichtblau) in the 2004 election year when it very well could have cost G.W. Bush the election.

WaPo has been very careful to offer pro Trump editorials all along.

Neither can bring themselves to write "Trump lies".

This really shows how inadequate the right/left division is. The NYT is an establishment newspaper - they have a few “liberal” positions like tending to support gay rights or at least some access to abortion, although they’ve published plenty of op-eds from people who don’t - but those are more outliers than a trend. Get them started on classic leftie issues like worker or renter rights, taxing rich people, etc. and they’re about as left as you’d expect the average Yale legacy admission to be. The left/right divide really isn’t the best lens for this.

I put a lot of blame on unpaid internship culture: the national media tends to skew towards people from affluent families because that’s who can afford the early career steps in NYC or DC at way below cost of living.