> economic interests are aligned with nuking highly critical comments
This is theoretically true, but the fact that it's been on the home page for 12 hours and has accumulated hundreds of critical comments, none of which any mod has touched, seems to (a) eliminate that possibility and (b) demonstrate that the risk is theoretical, not actual.
(Keep in mind that YC has thousands of investments, so whatever you think of their ethics or the incentives, a filter like this would be impractical and obvious. Also see "Not behaving in a way that damages the reputation of his/her company" on https://www.ycombinator.com/ethics/ - it's hard to imagine YC supporting this.)
This thread rose to the top group of the front page last night (you can see I posted here then, I happened to see it). Then it sunk quickly and disappeared. I was a little dismayed because the cynic in me was thinking along the lines of it being removed for being antithetical to YC company success. I went to bed.
To my surprise, it was back up near the top this morning with almost a thousand votes and hundreds of comments. TripleByte may have chosen to burn their reputation irreparably, but I have gained a lot of faith in YC and the mods here.
It fell because of a software penalty called the flamewar detector. We review posts that get that penalty because there are often false positives. I saw it on the list last night and restored it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23280488). That was the only action any moderator took on the post. I'm glad I saw it quickly enough, because there would have been a nightmare of a flamewar about us 'suppressing' the post if we had missed this, when in reality it would just have been an accident of timing.
That raises the obvious question of why we have such software if it causes such problems, but the answer is simply that it helps more than it hurts, overall.
Hi dang, sent you an email about this, but perhaps it would be useful to include a page on HN recording "recent moderator actions". This could make the process more transparent for users and help them understand your actions (rather than producing conspiracy theories every week).
The question is whether that would raise more objections and protests than it would answer. Almost everything we do is defensible to the community, because if it weren't, we wouldn't do it in the first place. I say 'almost' because we make wrong guesses, but then we're happy to admit mistakes and fix them. That doesn't mean it's all self-explanatory, though. On the contrary, it can take a long time to explain because there are many complexities, tradeoffs, and non-obvious aspects.
Meta threads and discussions tend to invite objections from the litigious type of user. Such users are rarely satisfied, but have a ton of energy for meta argument, so it's easy to get into a situation where any answer you give leads to two or three fresh objections. Such objections have to be answered with great care, because if you slip up and say the wrong thing, people will use it to drum up a scandal (edit: and will quote it against you for years to come!). This consumes a lot of mental and emotional energy. (Edit: btw, this is asymmetrical: the people raising objections and making accusations are under no such restriction. They can say anything without downside, no matter how false it is or what they accuse you of. They can make things up with impunity and people will believe them by default, because on the internet you are guilty until proven innocent, plus everyone loves the underdog. These are additional reasons why it's easy to end up in a situation where every comment you spend an hour painstakingly composing earns you a bunch more counterarguments and demands.) These arguments tend to be repetitive, so you find yourself having to say the same things and defend against the same attacks and false accusations over and over. This is discouraging, and there's a high risk of burnout. Disgruntled users are a tiny minority, but there are more than enough of them to overwhelm our limited resources—it ends up being something like a DoS attack.
I fear this outcome, so we've always shied away from adding such a system. We want to be transparent, and we answer whatever questions people ask, but it feels safer to do it ad hoc as questions come up. There's no specific question you can't get an answer to, other than a few special cases like how HN's anti-abuse software works.
There's an opportunity cost issue too. The vast majority of the community is pretty happy with how we do things—I know that because if they weren't, we'd never hear the end of it, and then we'd say sorry and readjust until they were. I think it makes more sense to do things to keep the bulk of the community happy, or make them happier, than to pour potentially all our resources into placating a small minority—especially since, once you've done this job for a while (say, a week) you know that nothing you do will ever be completely right or please everyone.
On the other hand, if I could ever be persuaded that a full moderation log would satisfy everyone's curiosity and reduce the overhead of misinterpretation, complaints, imagined malfeasance, etc., then we'd be happy to do it.
IMO, this and the child comments are some of the best articulated descriptions of the balance a moderator must make in today's online community. especially the part about fear's impact on your decision making. Thanks for you transparency and moderation efforts. Keep up the good work.
I first want to express my gratitude for your thoughtful reply, and more generally your willingness to consistently engage with the HN community with both reason and compassion. I have no doubt you have the HN community's best interests at heart - there is simply legitimate disagreement about how best to accomplish that. Your cooperative communication style undoubtedly goes a long way in allaying the community's concerns. So, great job on that front.
I agree with you that any community faces the problem of a vocal, critical, and nearly insurgent minority. They seek to identify contradictions in your logic with the predominantly self-interested goal of demonstrating intellectual superiority rather than finding genuine solutions. I can understand the emotional burden of continually sparring with such individuals. You can't please everyone.
In contrast, there is the silent majority. By virtue of their silence, it would appear they condone current management of the site. I am not sure this can be assumed.
First, it is generally the "first movers" of a given activity who are both the first to try it, but also the first to defect. For example, there are people who are passionate about Microsoft or Apple products and review them publicly. When they stop reviewing these products, it is indicative of a lack of passion; they have moved on. The majority soon follows, just like they did when the first movers initially promoted the activity. In this way, the first mover is the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Are HN's vocal critics really first movers? The ones who are thoughtful, at least, are certainly among the most passionate and engaged; losing them would be the canary. (Admittedly, you must be able to discern those who are vocal and thoughtful from those who are vocal and thoughtless, but I am confident you have that capacity.)
Second, there is the issue of the 90-9-1 rule. The vast majority of users of HN never comment nor express their opinion; they simply observe. This will be true whether or not they are satisfied with the service. If they are dissatisfied, they don't comment, they simply leave. On the other hand, composing only 10%, the vocal minority must necessarily be the minority. Can we uniformly dismiss this vocal minority as unrepresentative of the silent majority? No, because there is no other proxy for surveying the majority. (Again, you must discern the productive from the unproductive critics.)
Finally, there is the burden of simply engaging. I am amazed by the amount of time and effort you must invest into moderating HN and in writing your responses (among, I'm sure, numerous other activities such as actually writing code). It appears that recapitulating your justifications over and over again is not particularly efficient.
That, however, does not imply that failing to justify your actions is suddenly an adequate substitute. It simply means that the current method is inefficient.
There are a few conclusions I think we can draw from this. We can't dismiss the vocal minority because it's all we have; rather, we must discern those who are constructive from those who are destructive. Further, like blowing onto a flame to put it out, ignoring or suppressing them will likely instigate even more frenzied conspiracizing. Finally, responding to each of them individually is inefficient and burdensome.
I think a basic ledger of "moderator actions" would solve many of these issues. To start, it would probably not be an exhaustive log, but simply actions performed at the thread-level rather than the comment-level. It is transparent, just like your comments and the HN community guidelines already are. It would broaden understanding of your actions, rather than rely on users to dig through your recent comments (the only ledger thus far, without which they undoubtedly draw their own conclusions). Finally, it would reduce the burden on you.
Would it, however, pacify the vocal minority? Would they conspiracize further? Would they levy more demands to change the site?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
But it seems clear that those who are worth listening to, vocal as they may be, are in fact worth listening to. They are the canaries. And if they increasingly demand more transparency (which you would know, not I), that is likely worth making some steps toward satisfying. If they make more demands, so be it.
Communities change over time, especially as a function of scale, and I think HN is no different. The only thing that generally must be kept constant is prudent stewardship, and I am fairly confident your track record satisfies that. There may be mistakes along the way, but as long as you make a transparent, genuine effort to serve the community (as you clearly have done historically), that will go along way in retaining the trust of the community.
To be honest, the reason I don't do it is fear. Normally I'd say "we" in a sentence like that, but in this case the fear is mine.
Maybe such a device would satisfy everyone's curiosity and make the community as happy as a gently tickled baby. Users would raise questions, other users would helpfully look up what happened in the moderation log, and still other helpful users would chime in with past examples of how we do things that way, and why. Enormous pressure would lift from our shoulders and we could sit back and eat potato chips (or carrot sticks), or even better, work on the code. No longer would we be under attack from all sides. The war would be over and transparency would rule the land. Huzzah! (In case that sounds sarcastic, I do have that fantasy sometimes.)
On the other hand, maybe it would be the apocalypse. I fear the apocalypse. There isn't a lot of room for more pressure of the kind I described upthread. We operate on the edge of being maxed out.
Also...I have a feeling that it might not be good in the long run. Moderators here are in a super complex dance with the community. I think it's important for them (us) to have the degrees of freedom that non-public moderation provides. It allows you to do things, try things, take chances, make mistakes, etc., that you wouldn't do if you were under floodlights all the time. It's for the same reason that you wouldn't want your boss standing behind you, breathing down your neck all day—even though you're not doing anything the boss would object to, except perhaps checking Hacker News too much—except that it's actually in the boss's interest for you to be checking HN that much, because it's complicated, besides which sometimes something comes up on HN that actually makes a big difference, plus...never mind, the boss wouldn't understand. It's just best if the boss lets you do your job.
I like this analogy, because the community really is the boss here...if by boss you mean a ten-headed dragon who likes to bite your head off once a day or so, but you know how to reattach your head so it's ok, except it still feels bad to have your head bitten off, plus it takes hours to reattach it. It could be that allowing moderators that degree of opacity turns out to be an essential aspect of operating the site.
But the truth is I don't know. sama suggested we do this 6 years ago and I said no way, for the same reason. Maybe in another 6 years I'll have worked through the fear.
One last thing. If anyone is reading this and thinking of replying "Aha, moderator guy, I've got you! If you're so afraid...what are you hiding from the community? tell us that, you self-contradictor, you!"...I've already planted an effective rebuttal to that precise objection in this thread. So tread carefully, objector guy! Or maybe I haven't, and I'm just saying that, because it's complicated.
I think that if the moderation becomes public, it becomes a target and not an effective way to measure behavior. People will try to game the ways they interact with moderators. They'll start to argue and lawyer you against yourself -- "you didn't demote this post but you demoted mine". I think any of us who have done user moderation for more than a month has seen this kind of behavior.
Transparency is great in public institutions that spend our tax money. In communities like this, we just need a chieftain to handle our disputes fairly and keep us all from going nuts every so often. Those of us who have been coming back for years already know that you do that, or at least try your best to be fair and open and neutral.
I doubt you could keep everyone happy by releasing a log of moderator actions. People complain now, but look at ArbCom on Wikipedia, which makes all the decisions in public, and there are websites devoted to trashing the process there. And if you're not making people happier, nor making their interactions here more pleasant or informative, what is the goal again?
Plus, it's not just moderators getting a chance to make mistakes, it's also the users. I don't want to end up in a log somewhere for my terrible posts. You've told me to improve before, and I did. At least I've tried to. Admittedly my posts haven't been high quality lately. Anyway, the more formalized the process becomes, the less human we're all allowed to be. That can be good or bad, but I think in this case it's been good. Most of the reactions to OP tend to think that privacy is valuable sometimes.
I could be wrong, of course. Do what you think is best for us. That's why we keep coming back.
Feel free to reuse anything here. I feel like that was only bits and pieces of what I'm really thinking, but human behavior is so vast in scope that it defies easy analysis.
If you ever write more of what you're thinking on this topic, please let me know at hn@ycombinator.com. I'd like to read it. Users often point things out that we haven't thought of, but this was a particularly memorable case to me.
This. I mean, I'm all for being aware of others' biases and conflicts of interest, but -- whatever else you might criticize the mod team for -- they're definitely not "running interference" for TB or anything here.
This is theoretically true, but the fact that it's been on the home page for 12 hours and has accumulated hundreds of critical comments, none of which any mod has touched, seems to (a) eliminate that possibility and (b) demonstrate that the risk is theoretical, not actual.
(Keep in mind that YC has thousands of investments, so whatever you think of their ethics or the incentives, a filter like this would be impractical and obvious. Also see "Not behaving in a way that damages the reputation of his/her company" on https://www.ycombinator.com/ethics/ - it's hard to imagine YC supporting this.)