GitHub Says ‘No Thanks’ to Bots — Even if They’re Nice

Re:GitHub Says ‘No Thanks’ to Bots — Even if They’re Nice by zem on Saturday December 29, 2012 @03:48PM (#4983391)

you could have a single opt-in to bots-as-a-whole (as a github account setting rather than per-repo), and then blacklist individual bots if they end up being spammy. that seems like a nice balance between "do nothing by default" and frictionless adoption of the feature.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub Says ‘No Thanks’ to Bots — Even if They’re Nice by thwarted on Saturday December 29, 2012 @07:02PM (#4983967)

While this is a fine idea, why can't that be "opt-out to bots -as-a-whole (as a github account setting rather than per-repo), and then whitelist individual bots if you want to find out if they provide some utility"? That seems like the proper balance between "do nothing by default" and the lest friction required to use bots without requiring those who don't want to be involved at all needing to do anything?

If it's about discovery of bots, then come up with some meaningful way to make them discoverable (presumably better than the Apple App Store zing) without people needing to be exposed to them by default.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub Says ‘No Thanks’ to Bots — Even if They’re Nice by zem on Saturday December 29, 2012 @07:49PM (#4984051)

white listing individual bots is not low-friction. ideally i want the bots to discover me, not vice versa.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub Says ‘No Thanks’ to Bots — Even if They’re Nice by thwarted on Saturday December 29, 2012 @08:43PM (#4984189)

You do, but no one else does.

How about a header in email that the sender can include that forces the email to the top of your inbox and makes it undeleteable? You can opt-out by having an email address of [email protected] all the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub Says ‘No Thanks’ to Bots — Even if They’re Nice by sillysaurus on Saturday December 29, 2012 @09:13PM (#4984279)

You do, but no one else does.

How small-minded. There are many of us who want to be discovered by bots. We just keep quiet because people like you have such strong opinions and aren't afraid to be mean about them.

Wouldn't it be ironic if your opinion was in the minority?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub Says ‘No Thanks’ to Bots — Even if They’re Nice by thwarted on Sunday December 30, 2012 @12:32PM (#4986389)

The people who want opt-in are not the bad guys here, and neither are the people who want opt-out. The bad guys are those who poisoned the well, tragedy of the commons, by abusing the system. Unfortunately, there is a greater chance of abuse than there is utility, and it's more difficult for everyone to manage opt-out on an individual occurrence basis than it is to manage opt-in centrally by trying to ban bots across the board. And neither are that actually that successful, despite there having been individual successes in some communities.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub Says ‘No Thanks’ to Bots — Even if They’re Nice by gbog on Sunday December 30, 2012 @05:39AM (#4985352)

Yes, I want bots too.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GitHub Says ‘No Thanks’ to Bots — Even if They’re Nice by thomaslangston on Sunday December 30, 2012 @12:20AM (#4984769)

Reddit's user made bots are an awesome addition and I'm very glad they are not opt-in.

I think there is room in every community for automated users, if the tools for managing misbehaving users is strong enough. Github however has been known to not have strong moderation tools, so perhaps a temporary opt-in policy could be used until those tools improve?

[ Parent | on HN ]