Ask PG: Can We Have An Honest Discussion Around Abusive Flagging On HN?

[vaultboy21]

the below is a screengrab of http://news.ycombinator.com/news pages 1 - 3 (reformatted for continuous viewing), as of 13:00 EDT on Thursday / 16 May 2013. (highlighting and related commentary added).

i put this together as a high-level and informal analysis of post rank as a function of: time since submission (hours), upvotes (points), and the volume of comments posted. comparisons made relate to the post Google to Microsoft: Remove your YouTube App from the Windows Phone Store https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5715168 (shown as highlighted in yellow; near the bottom..)

> http://i.imgur.com/ZCR2hun.jpg

without knowing exactly how rank is determined, the highlighted post’s positioning appears to be significantly depressed relative to where it should be, based on examining similar posts (in terms of time since posting, points, and comments).

it has been mentioned that this irregularity is likely due to said post being atypically ‘flagged’ as spam. i have no data to back this up, but having seen similar behavior before, i believe this to be the case - and it appears to be a fairly common occurrence with posts that present a viewpoint counter to that of the majority. i believe this apparent abuse of the spam ‘flagging’ feature on HN is seriously detrimental to the community.

i think it would be beneficial if we could: (1) get a statement clarifying rules/good practices around ‘flagging’ posts, (2) some form of verification that abuse of this feature has been occurring, or evidence contradicting it, and (3) a discussion around potential changes to the system.. i personally believe keeping the feature in-place makes sense, to help deal with actual spam, but would recommend implementing some logic to help mitigate its abuse (such as a upvote/comment threshold that, if achieved, negates the effect of flags).

[ColinWright]

For convenience, here's a link to the item in question:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5715168

And here's a history of its ranking, clearly showing flags or other penalizing behavior:

http://hnrankings.info/5715168/

I have no skin in this game, I didn't read the item in question, but I am interested in community dynamics.

Now I've had a brief look at it. Speaking purely for myself I find the ensuing thread a deeply unpleasant read. I don't care about the article in question, but I would flag the thread for its unpleasantness. I haven't, I won't, but I can see why others might feel that the entire argument is non-constructive, and that HN would be better off without it.

Just my opinion, of course, which is probably worth as much as you've paid for it.

Added in edit: We're recently learned that HN has a flame-war detector. I'd be unsurprised to learn that this tripped it.

[simba-hiiipower]

..i think one of the reasons the thread got so toxic was over the (apparently true) allegations that the post was being heavily flagged - and early on.

according to op (of original thread) it appears that the flagging occurred almost immediately, so the argument that some may be flagging due to the toxic nature of the thread doesn't make much sense to me.

[ColinWright]

According to the record of rankings provided above it was over an hour before it got flagged enough to affect its rank.

[vaultboy21]

its still odd behaviour.. look at any similar post (in terms of age/activity) and you can clearly see that one stands-out as odd. here's one that looks to follow a more typical progression - http://hnrankings.info/5719667/

also from making it near the top [rank 3 / 22:30-22:45] it rapidly fell close to the bottom of the front page [rank 22 / 23:10].. that's a pretty quick decline.

[ColinWright]

This is behavior I've seen before. A rapid rise, staying high in the rankings for a but, then getting a few flags to take it to the bottom of the front page, or the top of the second page. A few more upvotes to get it back on the front page, normal declining with age and/or upvotes intermingled with the occasional flag, then getting hammered.

It's usually on long, unpleasant and angry exchanges that I see this behavior on, and I'm not at all surprised.

[vaultboy21]

thanks for the actual rankings numbers - that would have saved me some time..

and i agree that thread got pretty unpleasant and i think it highlights another side of the same problem as it shows how people who may not like the particular issue furiously attack those who do (and likewise in reverse).

i really believe if one made-up a similar post and reversed the roles between the two companies the reaction would have been substantially different - both in terms of the thread commentary and flagging. its one thing to disagree with something and argue against it, its another thing to try to burry something which only serves to depress any good exchange of thoughts that came come-out of it.

[DanBC]

> good exchange of thoughts that came come-out of it.

I don't flag threads if there's good discussion in them. I do flag threads that collapse into unpleasant nastiness. I downvote some of the worst examples of unpleasantness too.

It's very easy to say that people flag a thread just because it has positive coverage of companyA or negative coverage of companyB - and maybe that does happen - but the HN mechanisms are opaque and some people[1] flag threads for different reasons.

[1] Me. I do. So that's at least one person.

[vaultboy21]

clearly people flag for different reasons. that just bolsters my point that there should be an examination of flagging behaviour and some clarification around how its meant to be used, if need be, and potentially some adjustments to prevent occurrences such as when "people flag a thread just because it has positive coverage of companyA or negative coverage of companyB"

[DanBC]

You say that flagging is only for spam. It isn't. Flagging is for things that don't belong on HN.

Some things are obviously not suitable for HN. Somethings are obviously suitable for HN.

The tricky area is things that start off being suitable for HN, but then quickly collapse into mindless bickering.

There are some words that act as triggers to poor discussion. I proudly flag threads full of bickering. You should too.

[brudgers]

"Flagging is for things that don't belong on HN."

Flagging is for flagging. Things that don't belong on HN are part of it. Redundant articles and bad discussions are others.

Even bad moods are a relevant reason to flag an article. HN is better if flagging is used to express strong emotion than toxic posting.

[DanBC]

Yes, I agree. I do flag when discussion is toxic.

[vaultboy21]

well then that's part of the problem..

i don't want to turn this into a battle of fanboys, but i have a hard time believing a post titled "Microsoft to Google: Remove something as it violates something.." would have been so heavily flagged or sparked such negative discussions..

what became apparent to me, from both reading the comments and seeing how the post was handled, was it did collapse into mindless bickering, but mainly because people rushed to 'defend' the company they feel more loyal to..

all i'm saying is flagging shouldn't be used as a weapon in such bickering.

[vaultboy21]

from: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link.

[ScottWhigham]

i believe this apparent abuse of the spam ‘flagging’ feature on HN is seriously detrimental to the community.

Like DanBC said, flagging is just for spam. And really - "abuse" is just hyperbole, isn't it? And while we're talking about hyperbole, your whole title is just flag-worthy for the dramatics alone.

If, for example, a post gets 447 upvotes, how many flags constitute "flagging abuse" in your mind? For something to get 447 upvotes means that (a) a large portion of the community saw the headline, and (b) a large portion of the community read the article (or at least part). What makes you think that it is "abuse" if a portion of said Group B decided to flag it as "off topic" or "bad journalism" (or whatever - I didn't flag it but, like others have said, I can see how and why some people would)?

You're acting as though flagging should have no weight on ranking. Why not make your case and put up a poll in a new thread? I'd suggest leaving out a fair bit of the dramatics you've created this post with though...

[vaultboy21]

from: http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

..the guidelines clearly specify flagging is for spam or off-topic posts. i generally define 'abuse' as utilizing a feature for something that its not intended for, such as burying a story one does not agree with.

saying its 'off topic' is total bs. issues involving standards, ip, public access, etc.. (also, involving two of the largest tech companies, the mobile space, a popular web-based product, etc...), seem to be very relevant around here and frequently come-up.

so.. this wasn't spam or off-topic, yet shows heavy flag activity. that indicates abuse to me. would 'misuse' be better? - its petty of you to dismiss my point as being 'dramatic'. i attempted to frame the issue as i saw it, using the evidence i was able to scrape-together, and tried to avoid making generalizations or turning it into a 'hn hates microsoft' or whatever as i'm sure this happens often, but this case highlighted it most clearly, and most recently..

[ScottWhigham]

its petty of you to dismiss my point as being 'dramatic'.

No, sorry, that's not true. I wasn't the one who judged your original post - the one that was killed (by flagging) within minutes. Those people judged your post as hyperbole/dramatic/whatever you want to call it as well. I'm judging this specific post, however, and it is dramatic both in it's content and certainly in it's language. The title is just silly - "Can we have an honest discussion about abusive flagging on HN?" (italics mine). What other discussion would we have other than an honest one?

"Abusive" is just a word chosen for effect; misuse, while definitely being less dramatic, still implies that the community is doing something wrong. I don't think most of us feel that way. I think most of us old timers flag for different reasons than the newbies. My suspicion is that a lot of the older members (who also have high karma) flagged your original post for the reasons I've mentioned. If I'd seen it, I would've flagged it (as I've flagged this one).

[brudgers]

HN is statefull. The software manages it with user input. Sometimes HN even gets managed at the REPL.

The system isn't designed to be perfectly fair. It's designed to work, not to be purely functional. Anyway, there is no objective measure of merit for any submission or comment.

As CollinWright says, he would have flagged the thread because of the tenor of the discussion. This is not flagging the article or killing the story. It's taking the discussion off the front page.

[dangrossman]

Most things about Microsoft get flagged off (even a not-very-positive review of the Surface Pro tablet yesterday, which had lots of comments). Most every submission about the Marketplace Fairness Act ('internet sales tax') were also flagged numerous times despite no real bickering in the comments; some people really don't want it discussed at all for some reason.

[vaultboy21]

..i posted this yesterday under a diferent account but it was apparently removed, almost immediately. hopefully the same doesn't happen again.

edit: for convenience, clickable link to image above http://i.imgur.com/ZCR2hun.jpg

[ScottWhigham]

I'd almost guarantee that, if you posted the same thing (title + content), it was flagged like crazy (and that's why it was gone so quickly). I remember reading that the flag system weights flags heavier that are received within x minutes of the article being posted. In other words, if an article gets two flags in 20 minutes that may be fine. But if another article gets two flags in the first minute, it will be killed (or something to that effect).

This title and this post - it's just full of overly dramatic language choices. Make your case like a normal person and see how the community reacts to that.

[DanBC]

Do you have show dead turned on? Try turning it on and searching for the item. Maybe it got marked as dead. Maybe it just got flagged to death.

Meta stuff is often killed quickly.

[vaultboy21]

within a minute or two after posting it disappeared off the 'new' page. not sure what would have been the cause but i don't believe flagging would have caused that.