The penalties are interesting. It shows that the design goal is not to maximise interactions otherwise "controversial" posts should stay up. Still though, I wonder what's the point of deranking said posts. Minimise the potential for a flame war to hit critical mass? Stop people from perceiving HN as an argument-filled forum?
> It shows that the design goal is not to maximise interactions otherwise "controversial" posts should stay up.
What I believe to be a less human-moderated version of the front page still exists on HN. It is interesting to compare it to the default. Both have their benefits.
The design (not sure about its goal) maximizes incentive for medium-complexity ideas being expressed in comments with at most a handful of replies.
The “comments on a submission with ranking based on votes” model is fundamentally unsuited for in-depth, thoughtful discussions. Everything we write in this comment section will be mostly forgotten by tomorrow because there is no notification system for when someone replies to your comments.
Zero people are going back through old submissions more than a day or two old and looking for insightful comments to reply to.
HN is already perceived as an argumentative forum. Now imagine if the ratio rule wasn't there. FWIW I find it just as effective on Bluesky and Twitter for myself. Ratioed threads are usually more heat than light.
Yes I second this, HN is one of the least argumentative places I’ve encountered on the internet. Now people disagree with each other a lot, but it’s usually quite respectful compared to most of the internet.
Actually HN is a great place if you have different opinions than the majority.
As long as you make a good argument that's not flippant or rude, people will engage with it.
I hold very controversial points of views and never really experienced personal attacks (perhaps sometimes downvotes but that's not a deal breaker for me) when I express them here.
More to it, I tend to upvote comments I disagree with it.
Yup, with just enough of an unmistakable ideological slant to force posts with differing views to take a Kharma nose dive. It seems that the addition of Kharma is proportional to posts that align with the overall narrative of the board post sentiment. In my case, I've noticed that some of my posts don't appear as originally created. Can't really confirm if this is inherent to the algorithm or just internal interference. The latter would be my guess. :(
