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.
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?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45601853 (Palestinian bodies returned by Israel show signs of torture and execution)