My incorrect misuse of "delete" was not intended to suggest that posts which are in flagrant violation of the guidelines be expunged from the site. Not only would marking them dead be preferable in the spirit of transparency and trust - it would also demonstrate examples of inappropriate topics.
I intended [3] to be an example of a submission related to this same topic which was not in such obvious violation of any guidelines. Consequently it did not become a flame war. Perhaps also consequently it did not garner as much attention.
For posts like these, there is a clear tension between what people want to discuss and what conforms to the guidelines. There are countless admonitions here about this place not becoming reddit. For these topics, you seem to be over-weighting participant preference in the direction of becoming more like the bad parts of reddit.
It's fine to think that, and I hope you can trust that what we care most about is the trust and health of the overall community, and it's an ongoing challenge to find the right balance. We won't get it right every day or month but we hope we can over the long term. It's still important for all users to make an effort to observe the guidelines do their own bit to contribute constructively to HN.
Maybe you can explain your moderation philosophy because, based on our discussion here, it's completely opaque to me. And maybe that explanation should be included in the guidelines.
There are many examples of posts which violate every one of the on-topic and off-topic guidelines. From what you've written here, it sounds like there's a shadow guideline - if enough people (i.e., a mob) want to see something here, then it stays, regardless.
Here's a recent example [1]. Why isn't this dead as a violation of every guideline?
I only just saw this (having been less attentive on HN for the past week due to a family event). I've said upthread that you're welcome to discuss this via email, and it's a more reliable way of communicating with us than replying to a comment after several days (like everyone else we don't get alerts on replies).
> Here's a recent example [1]. Why isn't this dead as a violation of every guideline?
It is dead. It spent no time on the front page (hence we didn't see it) and received only one comment. This looks like HN's guidelines, systems and organic community processes working perfectly. What makes you think otherwise?
> Maybe you can explain your moderation philosophy because, based on our discussion here, it's completely opaque to me. And maybe that explanation should be included in the guidelines.
I'll repeat what I've tried to convey to you in this discussion:
- We moderate to retain the the trust of the whole community across the spectrum of opinion.
- Mainstream news, regardless of the topic, qualifies as being in-scope for HN if it is "evidence of some interesting new phenomenon" (that's verbatim from the guidelines) and/or contains "significant new information" (that term is used routinely in moderator comments).
> There are many examples of posts which violate every one of the on-topic and off-topic guidelines. From what you've written here, it sounds like there's a shadow guideline - if enough people (i.e., a mob) want to see something here, then it stays, regardless.
I've responded to all the once you've cited. The one you cited above was dead. The ones you cited previously were (arguably) "significant new information", though we didn't give them front page exposure.
You haven't cited any posts that "violate every one of the on-topic and off-topic guidelines". I'm happy to respond to any further examples that you can cite.
And once again I encourage you to email us to discuss further, rather than adding more comments to a weeks-old thread that few people, including us, are likely to see. Several of the most active HN users email us regularly to discuss these matters.
I intended [3] to be an example of a submission related to this same topic which was not in such obvious violation of any guidelines. Consequently it did not become a flame war. Perhaps also consequently it did not garner as much attention.
For posts like these, there is a clear tension between what people want to discuss and what conforms to the guidelines. There are countless admonitions here about this place not becoming reddit. For these topics, you seem to be over-weighting participant preference in the direction of becoming more like the bad parts of reddit.