Do HN discussions add insight and interest? Do they raise or lower the quality of discourse here?

Some discussions devolve very quickly into name-calling, negativity, and mindlessness. Some elevate into insightful observations and positive debate. Look at the discussions and think about whether HN should encourage or discourage them.

My thought is that if TC discussions on HN are positive, there should be no ban regardless of the quality of the links. But if there is a preponderance of negative discussions around its links, it may be in HN's interests to simply walk away without any further ado.

Some people are living in a bubble, so they think a review on TC matters.

My gripe with TC is that lately, most of their articles have been based on "anonymous sources" or gossip. Having said that, I don't really mind too much either way if they're banned or not. I'd much rather they started reporting unbiased facts and news.

The lack of that kind of watered-down-for-the-masses content is why I found HN so appealing. I would much rather read hacked together transcripts from Dijkstra's brain.

It's not so much that I have something against those publications, but rather that it is easy to get that content somewhere else. People forward it or it's at digg or something.

Which niche is HN meant to fill?

It seems like as the population of a community approaches infinity, the mainstreamness of the content approaches 100%.

TechCrunch, Coding Horror, and Rails-Drama are not insightful, often factually incorrect, always incendiary -- linkbait flytraps for junior technologists.

Even if the story is complete garbage, one can find good insights in the discussion inspired by it; often with enough data so that I don't even need to read the original if I don't think it worthwhile.

With a blanket TC ban, I'd either miss out on a good bits (if I didn't follow TC feed directly), or be more annoyed (if I did follow it and read most of what they post).

So I think the commentary here is much better filter of good vs crap than any ban or automatic filter would do.

(For that matter, has there ever been a social news site whose primary method of filtering links was letting each individual user ignore things? It might be an interesting way to maintain a community.)

Besides, a per-site filter won't stop offtopic posts from being flagged, or debates from starting. They'll only allow certain people to ignore certain posts, which those people want to do anyway. I for one wouldn't block TechCrunch, and I'm certain many more would keep reading it as well.

There's flagging, too, of course.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=160704

Collective screening of linkbait/spam articles is useful IMHO.

I think Valleywag is actually better-written than those other two. It just happens to be completely off-topic.

Because of TC's journalistic standards, I forbade my team members from talking to TC about our stealthy project... 18 mos ago.

That said I think CHOICE is a good thing. For example I filter CodingHorror and TechCrunch (and a few others - Seth Godin is the only major one that springs to mind) for a variety of reasons. I chose not to view them. But some people do like to read them (even if it is just for a laugh ;)). If you want to ban them there is a Userscript to filter them, if not, then dont :D

I personally have lost all respect for TC recently: poor reporting, poor sourcing, extreme attention grabbing headline, petty squabbling and generally insulting pointless stuff :P But that is just my opinion, others might find it relevant! Were hackers not censors.

What would banning them add? Is it impossible that they might yet say something useful?

I'm struggling to remember the last useful TC 'article'. Any example?

edit: It's quite hard to remember a TC article that didn't mention twitter also ;)

Maybe it'd be better to just create 2 front pages - one with everything, and one which removes some of the less useful gossip sites.

I agree with the OP - in the last few months TC seems to have descended into gossip and rumor.

There's a parallel here with language choice. Some languages let you shoot yourself in the foot, and others try desperately to protect you. Newbies might need and benefit from the protection, power users often get frustrated at being prevented from doing things.

My principle is: when there's a balance to achieve, don't forbid things.

Others would need to learn that.

Perhaps adding the # of flags might be an option (or some indication)

This happened with Facebook too and to some extent Youtube. In my opinion TC are doing the same as most of the media:

People join X social networking site

Media writes about X site

People feel positive with a "hey, they're talking about X, I use X. This publication/site is relevant to me" feeling

More people join X

The thing that annoys me about TC is that their headlines are so inflammatory that I just have to click them to find out what they're beating up now, and always instantly regret it. Perhaps the key is developing better self-control.

In so doing, there's a chance we could recreate here the original core of TC -- TC as it was in 2005/06, when it reported like a warm and enthusiastic newswire for all startups... before the pursuit of links and clicks led to all the pot-stirring, soap-opera, friends-and-enemies dross that now dominates TC.

Is banning TC necessarily the best solution? Maybe not, but we don't have another solution available that's doing the job. There might also be some throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, which seriously depends on how much TC is a source of news (for HN, specifically) that can't be had anywhere else. I'm not inclined to say that they are a significant source of such news for HN.

Similarly, one of Arrington's recommendations at the 2008 YC startup school was: if you want good coverage, leak us info so "we remember that down the road".

When there's a choice between two sources for the same story, I'd prefer the one where editorial judgment isn't driven by the constant filling and draining of a favor bank... even if that means using a source that's second-to-report.

(Otherwise, the situations where TC is truly a 'primary source', in the sense meant by a traditional journalist or historian, are not 'often' but rare.)

The time period can be manipulated (12 hours, one week, whatever).

This will limit the effect of TC and a few other sites that are very frequent front-pagers without merit IMHO.

If people are already doing that, then it could mean the HN has grown beyond what the early adopters consider to be the critical mass.

That said, the voting system does a decent job of keeping excessive TC off the front page. Lets just agree to think about the kind of discussion that can be had about each TC submission and act accordingly.

Let's solve it the HN way. Just don't up vote what you don't like. OK, you say, "I don't, but they get votes somehow". That, my friend, is _probably_ because community is polluted.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=81

One you detect that pattern you should ban them to avoid further spreading of bad behavior.

And I am not talking about TC only...

Also see the first time this was asked, including appropriate response from Arrington. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=181539

    > (let voters (map !2 ((item 625256) 'votes))  
        (list (round (avg (map [karma _] voters)))  
              (round (avg (map [days-since (uvar _ created)] voters)))))
    (350 318)

    > (let novoters (map !2 ((item 625257) 'votes))  
        (len (keep [mem _ novoters] (map !2 ((item 625256) 'votes)))))
    16

But then I have no idea what language or query that is so I probably misunderstood

TC sucks, but banning sites kinda goes against the whole free speech, freedom of information thing.

I'd support built-in content filters on an opt-in basis. That sounds like a good idea.

As it is, the up/down voting gives them feedback on an post-by-post basis as to what matters to HNers. [ Just in case they care. ]

In regard to one post: Let's not "protect" noobs from "bad info" - except to the extent that we noobs can see what the overall HN population thinks of value of specific articles. That is the power of what HN has to offer to begin with! --and it gives more feedback about specific articles (e.g., if there is no (or few) upvotes) than if no feedback at HN existed about particular posts.

But is it really such a big deal, don't click on the TC links and if you end up on TC just use the back arrow. Nothing too difficult is it?

2) Yes, the quality of this blog is definitely declining and taking on more of a gossipy tone.

But no, I would not ban TechCrunch. Sometimes they have interesting stuff. Instead I would focus on trying to find better methods for HN to attract and mold a better community. That's the real challenge.

I think that 100% of HN members are aware of TC, and have already chosen whether to put it in their feed reader or not.

Most of the articles on TC are boring, so I don't subscribe to their RSS feed. The few interesting ones do get posted to Hacker News.

So instead of banning this site or that site, just focus on making sure good articles get the to front page, and flag the TC articles that you feel aren't worthy.

Ah, for a perfect community.

I love it because it's so big and it has a lot of good, breaking news.

I hate it because they're terrible journalists who have a lot of problems with writing style and logic.

I think the solution is that when techcrunch covers something that merits discussion, find a different source to link to as the discussion seed.

Yes because I /personally/ don't care for it.

No because not all of /us/ do.

Now what?

I don't think anyone is losing mental marbles, nor do are stories getting that bad. (Admittedly, I couldn't stand the stories a month or two, but things seem to be on the upswing again). The discussion is usually interesting for any highly-moderated story on the front page.

Ironically, questioning the mental prowess of other posters without mentioning a rationale for it contributes to a decline in quality of the conversation taking place. Maybe you could be more specific?

Are individual people losing it? Probably not.

But I point out logical inconsistencies where I see them, and when people miss the big picture (which is often) of a given problem or discussion.

Take the once-a-week discussion of pro-formal ed/anti-formal ed. It's always the same, the same ego-stroking and ego-defense, and most people are clearly working purely off their own biases, without even the benefit of having read any of the professional criticism / praise of the systems in place in the US, or learning theory, or theory of achievement, so on & so forth.

They talk to talk, since they are convinced of their own genius. This is "expressing yourself" at its worst.

Commentors are unfamiliar with basic rhetorical principles - calling certain things 'ad hominem' when they are genuinely relevant observations that have to do with the person, claiming that facts are pure and all that must be considered, falling prey to obvious bids for trolldom (time_management), etc., etc.

All of the above has, in my opinion, increased a lot in the past year & even last 6 mos. (Not to mention the shifting of content towards more & more regurgitated 'productivity porn,' tired old pablum that you could get from any 20-year-old Anthony Robbins tape or 60-year-old Peale book, or even older classical advice manuals.)

The alternative is that I'm suddenly a much deeper thinker than I was, and I don't think that's the case.

The education piece, as you mention, is (at most) a once-a-week ego-stroking event. It has become a pattern by now, with people more interested in defending themselves than "reaching the truth". I'm going to lose Karma for this, but how does that differ from the long tradition of promoting a programming language as the "be all end all" when the rationalist position is that each language has benefits and disadvantages? I submit that there hasn't been much of a change.

As for the lack of rhetorical skills, I cannot argue either way - I don't recall having read an article where someone accused someone else of making an ad-hominem attack (my own choice of stories differs from your own I suppose)

I'll agree with you on the "productivity porn" though. Much like some local tech events (like Tokyo 2.0), there does seem to be an excess of stories where people talk about "getting things done", without necessarily the evidence of anything actually being done.

Thanks for clarifying, and I hope you weren't offended at my original message.

You're right, the language stuff is almost exactly the same thing, except (in theory) HN people know a lot about programming languages.

The education stuff, and the economic stuff, and (god forbid) the design stuff, people know practically nothing about, and rarely bother to educate themselves. People just want a forum for venting their personal opinions and promulgating their pre-existing worldviews.

(In my opinion, true hackers -- the technical type, and every other type -- have fluid worldviews and don't invest much in defending their own egos in the face of conflict.)

HN does not promote moderation or rationality (e.g. "everyone should use the tools that make them most effective and not argue about it"). No popularity contest can.

It devolves into a place where people come to be reassured that they are, in fact, great, and the things that they are weak at are unimportant, and the things they are strong at are the most important things in the world. Metacognition disappears.

Cycle:

Founders: This place sucks! Let's start a new place with only the best.

First Wave: This place is so much better! I can breathe free with like minds! Yay! Let's tell people about it.

Second Wave: Dude this is like better than that other place. My Ruby linkbait isn't so lost in the news.

Third Wave: RON PAUL!!

All communities like this decay this way without very, very careful tending... and to do that careful tending, one must have an excellent understanding of social dynamics, human nature, and social skills in general.

Thus all developer-centric news sites are doomed! ;)

They are like a disease, we better find a cure before it is too late.

o.O

And then obviously not linking to it, etc. Show some respect for freedom.

Techcrunch is a news outlet, it writes about what people want to read. The internet is MUCH bigger than you and I my friend.