As for recoiledsnake, that is one of many accounts created by a group or individual who is either an astroturfer or indistinguishable from one. Part of his/her/their m.o. is to talk constantly about there being an anti-Microsoft conspiracy on HN. Sometimes he/she/they would use multiple, separate accounts in the same thread.

For example, if articles on Microsoft tend to get driven off the front page, while articles on Apple dominate it, that presents the appearance of the HN community being pro-Apple and anti-Microsoft, which affects the types of submissions and comments that are made, which affects the types of views people feel comfortable expressing, and eventually the types of people who choose to participate. The end result is that the community actually is more pro-Apple and anti-Microsoft, and the cycle intensifies until something close to homogeneity is reached.

As desirable as it is to discourage low-signal discussion threads, is there any thought given to the side effects of doing so?

I've seen plenty of Microsoft related stories, but if Microsoft tends to be driven off the front page, maybe it's because Microsoft is totally uninteresting and some Microsoft proponents behave like shills, especially because they bitch and moan about the lack of interest in Microsoft, as if it's some kind of conspiracy or as if it's our duty to have an interest in Microsoft.

People who think all Microsoft proponents are shills are...well, Slashdot already exists, so why do they bother hanging out here? If you aren't interested in something, don't upvote it, but please don't take a dump on it either.

> Agreed. The cry for attention from the Microsoft community is becoming a bit annoying, especially on HN.

Implies that they aren't a new user. I guess they just don't post much.

Anti-X sentiment takes a lot less effort than writing a cogent pro-X message supporting something, and everything has it's pro- and anti- crowd. I've seen plenty of posters complain that this, and other forums are anti-Apple, anti-Linux or anti-Microsoft when in fact there's a fairly healthy mix of opinion.

Maybe there is a trend against Microsoft in the news and forum world though. It doesn't seem all that long ago that most tech news and most interesting tech articles were about Microsoft products and technologies. Maybe that's still the case and I'm living under a rock, I doubt it because I still use mostly Microsoft platforms at work but it's possible, but there just doesn't seem to be all that much new and interesting stuff coming out of Microsoft these days. It's fairly rare that anything by them moves the needle in terms of tech punditry. They need to radically increase the value proposition of Windows and Metro just doesn't cut it. Maybe the Metro version of Office will help it get some traction but at this stage even that may not be enough.

I would say that both take equally little effort to do lazy, and both take equally large effort to do good.

If someone goes around and say that windows version so and so has great battery time, a lazy response is to simply disagree with it. A good response looks for benchmarks and ask why said sources do not support the original commenter's arguments, and if the commenter himself/herself has any sources to support the claim.

The reverse is equally true, in that finding sources takes equally efforts no matter what point of view one try to share.

So, I guess Microsoft news/posts get pushed back simply because most of the people here are not interested in them and don't want to see them. And I totally don't see how this is a problem.

Anyway, OP, either deal with it or stop posting here. In any case, please stop creating meaningless threads like this one.

Well if that would be the case, the vote counts would look a little bit different. MS related submissions do not lose by votes, they face the problem that a few HN mechanics gives veto powers to small groups that are loud and pissed enough. Likewise, it is very difficult to argue that the whole NSA shit is not an indicator for the US heading towards fascism or that the tech scene may have a problem with sexism.

In fact, it doesn't even need to be specifically pro- or anti-anything. Apple and Google are both companies that generate a lot of discussion on HN, with people both supporting and criticizing them. By contrast, one could argue that HN seems largely apathetic to Microsoft. If this perceived apathy on the part of the community is being amplified by the flamewar detector, then the perception is strengthened until it becomes reality: the people who want to discuss Microsoft simply go elsewhere.

I'd like to stress that this is not an issue I think is leading to the imminent demise of HN, but rather simply a potential long-term problem that should at least be recognized.

I'm really interested in this basic question as well. I come to the comments section to see discussion, even if it may sometimes be somewhat violent discussion. I don't really find I learn much from agreement.

This particular mechanism feels flawed to me because it's so invisible. I don't know what I've missed.

Meanwhile the #2 item was submitted 5 hours and it only has 90 points.

IMO anyone who observes HN reaction to any Microsoft topic (that isn't a virulently anti-Microsoft submission) knows that these topics will get pushed down to the back pages. In some cases, the reason may be flagging, in other cases, it may be the flamewar reason (that pg cites above)

Regardless of the reasoning, it is unfortunate that pg is unwilling to admit that this is a problem (and unfortunately, he does also reflect the thinking of most HNers). Fwiw in terms of disclosure, I was an SDE, then dev-lead at Microsoft in the 90s/00s and dev-manager for a few years later on, but I left the company in 2007 and since then, I've been running the company I founded.

This is a selfpost, and selfposts are automatically penalized.

I.e. it's an invalid comparison, because the #2 item is a link to a URL, whereas this post isn't. Selfposts require many more votes to keep pace with URL submissions.

I've been on HN for much longer than your 2-month old account and (based on the ranking of other "Ask HN" and "Show HN" posts I've seen), I suspect that you're speculating and that your assertion is incorrect.

The huge inconsistency between points and ranking happen on a large number of Microsoft-related posts and almost all of them point to external websites.

[update:Reply to LukeShu] Thanks LukeShu, it is good to know how ranking is implemented.

Btw I didn't question whether the absence of URLs reduced the ranking or not. My question was whether the absence of URLs was the only reason (or at least the primary reason) for the push-down of this specific post.

It seems clear that the .4 multiplication rule could not have been the only reason.

As per the .4 multiplication rule, the post with 290 points should have been downgraded to 116 points. Yet, 4 hours after submission, it was at #8. The #2 post only had 90 points and had been submitted 5 hours earlier. So it seems like the push-down was partly caused both by the 0.4 rule and partly by other factors.

Anyway, I appreciate your investigation. In spite of being on HN for the past few years, I never knew that posts without a URL, got hit by this 0.4 rule.

HN's ranking algorithm[1] (as of 2010-10-12):

    (= gravity* 1.8 timebase* 120 front-threshold* 1
       nourl-factor* .4 lightweight-factor* .17 gag-factor* .1)

    (def frontpage-rank (s (o scorefn realscore) (o gravity gravity*))
      (* (/ (let base (- (scorefn s) 1)
              (if (> base 0) (expt base .8) base))
            (expt (/ (+ (item-age s) timebase*) 60) gravity))
         (if (no (in s!type 'story 'poll))  .8
             (blank s!url)                  nourl-factor*
             (mem 'bury s!keys)             .001
                                            (* (contro-factor s)
                                               (if (mem 'gag s!keys)
                                                    gag-factor*
                                                   (lightweight s)
                                                    lightweight-factor*
                                                   1)))))

I think pg thinks there is a problem, and is almost surely willing to admit it.

I think he just doesn't see a way of solving it that doesn't involve the discussions here on HN becoming flamewars... Which is also a serious problem...

This looks to me very much like a doctor prescribing a drug with unfortunate side effects. You still do it, but you're also keeping an eye out for new drugs that don't cause as many headaches.

Seems like the flamewar detector would be better aimed at closing comments rather than burying stories.

But feel free to believe anything that reinforces your existing beliefs.

1. Turn off comments

2. Turn off comments and hide all comments to date.

You can't have it electing to remove one comment or another. At most it could delete a top level comment that was the spawn of the flamewar. But still, I say hide all comments and turn off further comments. That way we still get the benefit of the story.

A few days ago, on the topic of turning off comments when there is a flamewar, instead of knocking the entire post down/off the front page, I said this:

"[killing the discussion entirely] is a good thing, if something is on the front page then comments should be enabled, if only in case something in the article desperately needs to be corrected. If we get a post on here about a new study suggesting that vaccines may cause autism, that would almost certainly generate a flamewar but the absolute last thing we would want is for the post to remain on the front page and not permit anyone to post comments that may refute claims made by the study. In situations like those, it is better to kill the discussion and to take the post off the frontpage than to leave it there but disable commenting."

The important thing with a situation like that is to be ready to kill the feature as soon as people learn how to exploit it. It's one thing to see that it's theoretically exploitable. It's another to actually figure out how to selectively engineer flame wars to make a significant dent in the front page.

That is, if this is a actually problem and not only a theoretical one.

If I were an astroturfer, grooming accounts would be part of my daily routine. I'd probably automate it too.

Is it possible they post from work, and hence share the same IP address with other HN posters? Microsoft is a big place.

Anyway, do you know what I do when there are discussions online about my employer? I stay the fuck out of it. I think that is good policy, unless participating in those discussions is part of your job description. Best case scenario here: a bunch of well-meaning Microsoft employees got into an internet fight, got mistaken for a sockpuppet ring, and got a discussion about their company pushed off of HN? If that's in their job description, I don't know why they're still getting paid; if it isn't, maybe they should consider spectating next time.

  Anyway, do you know what I do when there are discussions online about my employer? 
  I stay the fuck out of it.

Same applies to social media.

That's a shame, since as an employee you have an unique and very valuable perspective on the company. Why not participate, perhaps add a disclaimer?

That said, I fully respect the preference not to and the request not to.

It might be nice to mark why article have been killed so we don't go off and make the wrong assumptions about what happened.

But the more salient point is, were he/she/they completely wrong in their accusations? Were all the examples he/she/they presented of articles dropping off the frontpage just instances of flamewar detection, or natural HN ranking at work, or something else?

If you indeed insist on closing the comments on flamewar detection - good courtesy suggests keeping the comments open for public review.

As for the conspiracy folk, why not make a multiple account detector and ban such folk?

This seems to be a recurring issue on HN, and a reliable generator of conspiracy theories. Would it be possible to have a small label signaling when a given article was flagged by the detector?

About, recoiledsnake I would not know much except his posts.

Given the size of the PR industry and the relatively low cost of posting on forums where influential people hang out I would think HN would be a tempting target, although it would have to be a sophisticated effort to go undetected.

And that's the thing. By the evangelist's own admission, MS is deeply hated in society at large. It's understandable but unlike a lowly MS engineer (who I do pity), a professional corporate "face" can't play the innocent victim.

Just consider. The very recent imposition of the Metro/Windows 8 interface on a widely unwilling public is prima facie evidence of MS' continuing abuse of it's particular monopoly.

The point isn't that MS has more of a monopoly than other corporations. It is that MS has a long, long history of wielding the big stick of their monopoly openly and brutally against enemies and "non-combatants" alike. A huge number of Windows users woke up without a Start Button because Balmer was gunning for a new market. Lie all you want about this being for the average person's benefit, you only prove my point. Yeah, I just don't think you can spin maneuvers like that into "we just build the future".

Edit: Just to note, I don't do editorial flagging. I'm not out to "get" MS but, well, they bring up feelings.

Secondly, the Metro UI thing, IMHO wasn't a forceful use of power. It was a bet (a lost one) that touchscreen laptops will become predominant. And So they created a UI based on that bet. They (incorrectly) thought that people want exactly the same UI on all their devices. So it's not that they are EVIL, just misguided.

So i don't HATE Microsoft, i just pity them.

They had one job. One job. Don't screw up Windows. And what'd they do? They screwed up Windows.

Metro was a mistake. And again, everybody else makes mistakes, too. But then they went full retard, and refused to backtrack. That part is the reason for the "hate."

Criticising Microsoft is like shooting fish in a barrel, so it's odd you'd pick on them for innovating without thought to convention and backward compatibility - an area where they're generally more cautious than the peers you named - and a product that actually has plenty of fans.

I don't understand why so many people fall for this misdirection.

Also, what kind of drugs does one need to ingest to make it seem like a good idea to enforce UI conventions optimized for 4" cell phones on a user with a pair of 30" desktop monitors? Are we talking plant-based alkaloids, aromatic hydrocarbons, or what?

So for someone like me, isn't the Metro Start menu good design? It has both the type-to-search thing and a full screen menu of icons i usually use.

Look i admit it seemed a little intimidating when i first saw it. Heck we have been using the start menu for more than a decade! It's almost part of our DNA now, so seeing the entire screen change in place of a menu is.... unexpected. But is it really that bad? Do you REALLY still browse through the start menu?

This debate was settled when Windows replaced MS-DOS. Most users do not want to remember, or type, the names of the programs they want to use.

Do you REALLY still browse through the start menu?

Yes, frequently.

Btw I presume from the bit about ms dos that you dont llike shells. But thats ur preference

The difference between me and the people at Microsoft is that I understand that there are different user types. None of which asked for their desktop PC to behave more like their cell phone.

Just because you don't like Metro, for whatever reason that might be, does not make it a mistake.

Don't break useful, common functionality because you think it's not important.

Sticking to my guns on this one and choosing to let your sarcastic tone slide.

And even if you do need Windows, Win7 works fine. I feel forced to switch from XP to 7, but that's not such a terrible move. I'll skip Win8, and maybe there won't even be a Win9.

If they were truly a monopoly, they would not have seen it as important to respond and revise Windows 8. Real monopolies can abuse their customers and have no qualms about it. Microsoft is no longer in that position, so they changed direction once they saw what was happening in the market. The fact that they responded to the market and changed course is evidence that they have no monopoly power in this matter. They simply made a huge mistake due to being terrified of what iPad was doing to them, and they decided wrong. It's nothing more than that.

And besides, it's not like they didn't have a public beta program in the first place.

Obviously things aren't black and white, we're arguing the degree of monopoly of MS. Consider, yes, eventually you hit the elephant hard enough with a 2x4 and it responds. It didn't respond much even then. And even government granted, official monopolies respond a little bit criticism.

Real monopolies can abuse their customers and have no qualms about it.

Many people would view MS as being just that way. But sure, maybe there's some leeway. But "no monopoly power" is bending the stick ridiculously far in the other direction. I mean, MS is convicted monopolist. They already lost a lawsuit in the 90's. [1] MS' strangle-hold PC operating system remains the same even if other markets (the web, the phone etc) have risen. (Edit: Consider, if MS did face competition in the PC operating system market, they might feel pressure to improve the PC rather than just milking their position for the purpose of entering other markets.)

And besides, it's not like they didn't have a public beta program in the first place.

Now there's some counter evidence to all your earlier argument. All the beta people were expressing shock and horror and MS did ... nothing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

How is that in any way an evidence for abuse of monopoly? I have Windows 7 on my laptop and have no immediate plans to upgrade it to Windows 8. Unless they force it through automatic updates or cancel my Win 7 license, there is clearly no abuse. You can still vote with your wallet.. you know?

>A huge number of Windows users woke up without a Start Button.

Huh?

People bought laptops and the laptops weren't what they were expecting. There's a lot they could have done in the abstract. There's a lot less they were capable of doing in reality.

Would you call Ubuntu's decision to suddenly switch all the window controls (Minimize, Maximize, Close) from left to right in one version an abuse of their "monopoly" in the Linux desktop world?

And Linux users have a full spectrum of distributions to choose from. If Ubuntu acts like an ass-hat, I can easily switch to Mint when the LTS version is no longer supported. I have a choice of desktops environments that all run the same services and applications. I'm not locked in, nor is my data. Squeeeeeee!

Huh? First of all, companies impose new things on their customers all the time. Secondly, I thought a company was abusing their monopoly when they use it to extort profit where there was none before? Changing the UI doesn't seem to be exploiting monopoly power for profit...

[1] http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/products/lifecycl...

So my answer is mu.

Personally I don't flag submissions for the submission itself unless I find it completely egregious, either from a journalistic perspective (many techcrunch-like articles) or just flat out lying/snake-oil, but I will at times flag a story if the conversation here on HN has gone well past the net-negative for humanity limit IMO. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. My understanding is that HN has systems designed to discourage things like that (eg rapid flamewars) and mods may do the same as me. The Nokia tablet story, while fine itself, was attracting pretty shitty comments. I wouldn't be surprised if it was getting knocked for those and not people trying to suppress Microsoft news. (and, yes, that does suggest a DoS approach, but hopefully there are other things (permadeath, etc) keeping that in check).

edit: ninja'd

As a recently added employee at GoDaddy, not by acquisition, I was a bit surprised by the visceral hate coming from the buyout of Media Temple.. my understanding is that MT will operate as a separate unit, and a lot of its' practices are moving into GoDaddy. I had a lot of anxiety at first, and sometimes still do. It's a culture that is dramatically and rapidly changing, but it does take time.

I've known plenty of people who work for MS over the years who are pretty bright, and do good work. I happen to be one of those people who like .Net (C# in particular), and can appreciate a lot of the very thoughtful decisions that have been made. On the flip side, I feel that the brand affiliation between products, while keeping windows alive for a long time, at the expense of potentially greater revenues (Office for iOS/Android), has hurt them a lot.

I've been spending roughly half my server-side dev time in node.js, and recently even more than that. I feel that docker.io + LXC + node.js is an incredible combination that MS doesn't match. I think that WebStorm is good enough, and VS is really getting a bit bloated and slow (plugins make it more effective, but more bloated and slow).

Who knows where things may go, I don't always choose MS, but I don't hate them. I currently have my HTPC running Linux+XBMC, my desktop at home and work are Windows (with VMWare for some linux work), and my laptop is a Mac. I use what I feel is best for a given task.

/$.02 + inflation

If you look back on times that people have complained about Microsoft posts being persecuted by flagging rings, you will (as far as I can see) without fail find a flamewar.

I don't mean to gloat, but I've been pointing this out for months. It is nice to be vindicated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5759369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6030087