News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ambition can be poison by pg on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @02:41AM (#5937919)
Yeah, I know. The underlying problem is the same. I've spent a good deal of time thinking about how to fix it. I wonder if it would work to normalize votes based on how far down the page a comment is. God would that complicate the code though.
Re:Ambition can be poison by porker on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @03:55AM (#5938118)
Could we also have a communal "hide posts by this user" feature? Over time the aggregate data would be useful to detect who is like this - especially if we can select a reason for hiding a user.
Re:Ambition can be poison by lotharbot on Wednesday June 26, 2013 @12:48PM (#5947206)
One of my suggestions to solve the mean-dumb-upvoted comment problem:

if a comment is truly so mean or dumb that the moderators choose to kill it, allow them the option of applying a karma penalty to anyone who upvoted it (which should come with an automated warning message so people know why their karma suddenly dropped). It's, in a sense, a way of voting on votes.

People might still upvote such comments, but at least then they'll know they're taking a risk by violating HN standards.

Re:Ambition can be poison by chris_l on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @06:53AM (#5938577)
Why don't you weight votes by age of the account? That would make the "old HN" more influential in the current one.
Re:Ambition can be poison by pg on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @12:15PM (#5940489)
Interestingly enough, in this case that would have worked. If you only counted the votes of the oldest accounts, the comment in question would have had negative points.
Re:Ambition can be poison by jamesaguilar on Tuesday June 25, 2013 @02:50AM (#5937952)
You should name the feature the anti-bike shed.