I'm seeing more and more instances of high quality, relevant submissions that are getting tons of upvotes, and generating very interesting conversations
in their comment sections without even a hint of controversy, and then
BOOM -- flagged off the front page -- most likely because of a small but very vocal minority who
take special exception to a particular story for one reason or another. I'm pretty sure flags aren't intended to serve as downvotes, but that seems to be how
they're being used of late, rather than just on spammy, off-topic, inappropriate, inaccurate, abusive, libelous, or frivolous submissions. Is my understanding correct???
This was a pretty interesting bit of investigative journalism that I submitted the other day:
"Dozens of CIA Agents at Benghazi Attack, Being Kept Quiet w/ Monthly Polygraphs (thelead.blogs.cnn.com)"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6152006
and it was definitely relevant to HN given all of the concern of late about abuses by the intelligence community and the "War on Leakers". However, it was
flagged to death because the word "Benghazi" has become so politicized that apparently some HNers just read the headline, incorrectly assumed
that it was some sort of right-wing talk radio screed, and flagged it without even bothering to click through to the article.
This was an interesting piece of journalism, giving a detailed description of the pressure the intelligence community exerts to silence "potential leakers".
The reporter (Jake Tapper) is probably one of the best in the business right now - with a reputation for being very balanced, and on a network with a
similar repuation.
This was no Fox News or MSNBC political hit piece.
This problem seems to be getting worse and worse.
UPDATE: And... This was flagged in 10 minutes. Great, The Circle is Complete.
This was a pretty interesting bit of investigative journalism that I submitted the other day:
"Dozens of CIA Agents at Benghazi Attack, Being Kept Quiet w/ Monthly Polygraphs (thelead.blogs.cnn.com)"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6152006
and it was definitely relevant to HN given all of the concern of late about abuses by the intelligence community and the "War on Leakers". However, it was flagged to death because the word "Benghazi" has become so politicized that apparently some HNers just read the headline, incorrectly assumed that it was some sort of right-wing talk radio screed, and flagged it without even bothering to click through to the article.
This was an interesting piece of journalism, giving a detailed description of the pressure the intelligence community exerts to silence "potential leakers". The reporter (Jake Tapper) is probably one of the best in the business right now - with a reputation for being very balanced, and on a network with a similar repuation.
This was no Fox News or MSNBC political hit piece.
This problem seems to be getting worse and worse.
UPDATE: And... This was flagged in 10 minutes. Great, The Circle is Complete.