zlacker

HN could do itself a huge favour by posting the usernames of whomever flags/upvotes/downvotes. Add an ‘engagement’ link to reveal these details on every post/comment.

>>pupppe+(OP)
Sorry, but we'd never do that. I can't imagine anything that would generate more ill will, personal attacks, fractiousness, and worse.

>>dang+iC
Not sure how anonymous attacks are better than personal attacks.

>>pupppe+jl1
Not following you. Do you want to explain?

>>dang+Dr1
One can flag without recourse, and are there any systems in place prevent someone from just carpet-bombing downvotes on a user I've decided to spite?

>>pupppe+S13
Oh yes—there are many such protections.

What do you mean by "flag without recourse"? That's one bit I still don't follow.

>>dang+sb3
>Oh yes—there are many such protections.

Oh! Well that certainly helps, I shouldn't have assumed they didn't exist.

>flag without recourse

I'm just referring to posts of a certain subject matter that tend to get flagged. If I'm anti-XYZ, is there anything stopping someone from flagging all things XYZ so they don't make the front page?

>>pupppe+9h3
> is there anything stopping someone from flagging all things XYZ

Yes, two things: (1) we take away flagging privileges from accounts that appear to be flagging based on such an agenda, and (2) users email us to review cases where they feel an article is on topic for Hacker News and should not have been flagged. We always review those cases, and sometimes we turn off the flags (but not always—it depends on whether we agree that the article is on-topic, contains significant new information, and can serve as the basis for a substantial discussion, among other factors).

More explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que..., including >>46378818 .

>>dang+fw3
Thanks for the explanation, I should’ve just assumed you guys were on top of things.

>>pupppe+7E4
Not at all, there's no harm in asking and we're happy to answer!