zlacker

>>tonmoy+(OP)
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

This is one of the more serious pain points I notice (thankfully only occasionally).

Obviously getting some visibility is important for people launching new projects. Sometimes adversarial comments seem to be motivated by commercial rather than technical reasons.

>>nologi+Dq
A shallow article written in bad faith only deserves a shallow dismissal.

Don't force me to fight an asymmetric warfare battle against malicious authors to participate.

>>antist+UR
Does a ‘shallow article’ even merit a dismissive comment? Wouldn’t it be better simply to ignore it and find another thread on which to engage?

>>ginger+NS
This makes sense to me since leaving a comment (even a negative one) would be a signal of engagement that would likely boost the likelihood of a given article being/remaining on the front page.

>>thecos+OV
I agree, it's the same principal as spam. You don't reply calling them out as a spammer, as that only signals that they have access to your attention. You blackhole the spam or sender or submit to authorities of services that can help you block it in the future, but you do not engage with the originator.

>>kbenso+VA1
Spam is the extreme example. What about family or acquaintances who compulsively forward every garbage blog post they come across on whatever their political obsession is? What do you do when they don't respect multiple polite requests to take you off their CC: list? At some point you go, "the hell with seeming disengaged and just letting this trash pass without comment."

I'll happily forfeit my right to remain aloof and to give no signs of engagement if I get annoyed to the point where I'd prefer to go to war.