[lmm]

Too many HN comments nowadays are a) dumb jokes b) disinformation that it would take too much effort to correct kindly. In the old days those comments were corrected harshly and that kept the community quality high (both because it kept the discussion more accurate at first order, and because it drove away users who couldn't take their lumps). Nowadays they are not corrected at all.

[hhjinks]

This is the problem with voting based social media. A demographic can be entirely supplanted by another really quickly. All you need is for the new demographic to upvote themselves, and the pre-existing demographic to not downvote the other demographic. Pre-existing users will start leaving when they see the content they originally came there for being outcompeted by the content the new demographic has introduced, causing a domino effect.

I've seen this happen with multiple subreddits. HN is also at risk for this, but it's a niche corner of the internet, so it would surprise me if there are ever enough non-assimilated individuals coming in at once to truly endanger the community.

[anonzzzies]

I would start by not allowing voting on main topics; only allow on comments. And rank topics based on comment votes. Bad comments are going to be downvotes or, if bad quality, will just be removed.

[kaba0]

Tildes may be an interesting testing ground as a forum without downvote. It has Labels instead for marking less constructive comments, like Joke, Noise, Malice, etc.

[Karrot_Kream]

Tildes does not rank based on voting, and instead displays votes as a separate signal. IMO it's a great piece of UX. It gives the author the pleasure of imaginary internet points but doesn't allow highly online mobs to sway the ordering of discussion.

[phs318u]

There's a part we can all play here and that is to downvote no-effort/low-value comments. I do that and occasionally explicitly respond to people asking them to refer to the HN guidelines and not turn HN into Slashdot. Jokes (with no other content), sarcasm and the like should all get downvoted. Thoughtful/high-effort comments should be upvoted.

[anonzzzies]

Yes, there are more reddit like comments now. Moderating is a really hard job when sites are very active.

[lmm]

I don't think it's an activity level issue. When dang took over he made an explicit shift to prioritizing kindness, with predictable results.

[Karrot_Kream]

dang has a different style than pg did but I really don't think that's the issue. The site is big now and has absorbed a lot of people fleeing Reddit and Twitter and they've brought that culture with them. dang's moderation has continuously been evenhanded and well applied. The site has changed despite his efforts, IMO.

[oska]

I hope this doesn't sound like 'sucking up' because it's certainly not intended to be that, but I have been continually impressed at how good a moderator dang is. And more than moderation, he also 'curates' the site well, often adding links to when the subject or even the same article has been discussed before, etc.

But moderation of a popular forum is a Sisyphean task, and worse, it seems that gravity increases over time in this form of the task, making rolling the ball up the hill increasingly hard and not just endless. That sounds bleak but I think the solution is that eventually all forums must be abandoned, however good they once were, and new places found. I expect this to happen with HN eventually too, even though it's had a pretty good run so far.

[smokel]

I don't think one can easily compare HN to other forums, so saying the results are predictable is a bit harsh.

I have been in many irc channels that were extremely harsh on cluebies, but all the flaming turned into a sport by itself, and drove away from the content. The same goes for usenet, many subreddits, and Twitter.

I think HN is doing amazingly well after such a long time. It would be guesswork to say how it would end up with a less kind moderator. I for one would have left, but perhaps I'm too kind.

It is annoying that people spread misinformation, but a quick scan of a user's comment history often gives a good indication of their credibility.

[lmm]

> I don't think one can easily compare HN to other forums, so saying the results are predictable is a bit harsh.

Well, I predicted them at the time (and IIRC commented as much), and that's been borne out.

> I have been in many irc channels that were extremely harsh on cluebies, but all the flaming turned into a sport by itself, and drove away from the content. The same goes for usenet, many subreddits, and Twitter.

You can definitely go too far. Kind is better than harsh all else being equal, and you should never reward cruelty for its own sake.

> I think HN is doing amazingly well after such a long time. It would be guesswork to say how it would end up with a less kind moderator. I for one would have left, but perhaps I'm too kind.

For me HN inherited an amazing community that has since gradually declined, and almost all visible moderator interventions have had a negative impact. I certainly think e.g. nudging out Chris Stucchio did more harm than good.

[deelly]

Add the third type please:

finding any reasons to contradict to parent commentor and win the arguments at any costs.

[npn]

Nice observation. I also noticed that the quality went downhill when HN applied strict moderation.

Sure this place looks friendlier now, but it feels empty as most competent people had already left.

[nnurmanov]

Not sure if it will ever be possible to moderate content as it was in the past. Time to generate content has become way faster and cheaper.