I have no official standing, but I've been here a while, and I pay attention to community dynamics, so I may have an insight.

It doesn't take many flags from ordinary users to get an item off the front page. Flags carry a heavy penalty, and it seems that just three or four will take an item a long way down the rankings. If one person points out that they think an item is inappropriate, or isn't really of "deep interest" to the hacker culture/mentality, others will stop to wonder, and then they may also flag. Thus a single comment like that will often result in enough flags to take the item down quickly.

I've found a good predictor is the ratio of points to comments. The item you mention has 23 points but 42 comments. People are replying without upvoting, and that is a predictor of something that many will think is not really contributing value to the site as a whole. Correlation is not causation, etc, etc, but I've found it to be a good predictor of what I personally want to read.

So those are my thoughts - they're probably worth about as much as you paid for them.

> It doesn't take many flags from ordinary users to get an item off the front page. Flags carry a heavy penalty, and it seems that just three or four will take an item a long way down the rankings. If one person points out that they think an item is inappropriate, or isn't really of "deep interest" to the hacker culture/mentality, others will stop to wonder, and then they may also flag. Thus a single comment like that will often result in enough flags to take the item down quickly.

So the one person, plus a couple of others is all it takes to surpress a story!

> I've found a good predictor is the ratio of points to comments. The item you mention has 23 points but 42 comments. People are replying without upvoting, and that is a predictor of something that many will think is not really contributing value to the site as a whole. Correlation is not causation, etc, etc, but I've found it to be a good predictor of what I personally want to read.

Or it could be a good talking point. On a subject people are interested in -- hence the votes to get it to the front page in the first place.

Can I ask you a question, Colin. Do you think the subject of domains is against hacker culture, or anti-startup in any way?

I can't comment on hacker culture, or what would be of interest to hackers, or what the HN "community" might regard as being of "deep interest." For me, the list was absolutely pointless, but I'm not looking for a domain.

And if I were starting a business again, I wouldn't care about three character *.io domains. And go look at the discussion - is there anything there of interest to hackers? Really?

Since you ask me personally, that entire thread feels like hackers shooting the breeze over coffee, and it has no substance. You may disagree, I'm sure there are many others who will, and I'm speaking for myself, from my perspective, with my background and interests. I personally wasn't interested in it.

But I didn't flag it - I am pretty parsimonious with flags, reserving them for what I feel is of serious negative value.

> is there anything there of interest to hackers? Really?

codepen.io and card.io (who got acquired by Paypal) may disagree.

Or people using them for "playfully clever" things -- to use a term I've heard Richard Stallman use to define hackers.

You're arguing with the wrong person in the wrong place. It got flagged, learn from it. Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. If you think this is of interest then write a post explaining why, and include the data as part of the post, don't just submit raw data and expect everyone instantly to agree that it's interesting and of value.

I think I've pretty much said everything I have to say on the subject now. If you have a question or comment that isn't already answered in one of my other comments, fine, but otherwise I won't repeat myself further.

To quote Samuel Johnson:

    "Sir, I have found you an argument;
     but I am not obliged to find you an
     understanding."

>don't just submit raw data and expect everyone instantly to agree that it's interesting and of value.

It was of value. People were taking action over the data.

You may not be looking to start a business, or do projects:

(To quote you from earlier) "And if I were starting a business again..."

But a lot of people on here are. And the very people who needed the data the most had it taken away from them.

How many complaints should it take? What number represents a quorum on HN? If a complaint is sufficiently strong, reasoned, and evidenced, then just one is enough. One person with an exceptional reason for a story to be removed should be enough to remove it.

Your point should really that the complaints aren't justified properly rather than there aren't a sufficient number of them.

The point is, it seems to only take one person to vehemently object.

> complaints aren't justified properly rather than there aren't a sufficient number of them

it's not that they aren't "justified properly", it's that they aren't justified at all.

From my submission: "I hate to be that guy who posts this sort of comment. Especially on HN. But still: Someone has to say it.

Pointless hipster-TLD is pointless. Utterly pointless."

Is it pointless?

Tell that to codepen.io, or card.io (who got acquired by Paypal).

"But still: Someone has to say it."

Did someone have to say it?

Saying something is pointless over and over doesn't make it pointless. That seems to be the basis of the argument.

If no one agreed with them then theirs would be the only flag and there would be no effect. If several people agreed then there would be several flags, and that's what appears to happen.

Largely speaking, and with few exceptions, this is a community moderated forum. Enough of the community decided that the submission wasn't sufficiently on-topic.

If you feel strongly that the data you presented is on topic then perhaps you would fare better not simply to post a bare list, but write a blog post about why short names like this are of value to startups, and how having a short domain name can radically improve your chances, and how you wrote a script to create the list, and now you're sharing it because you believe it to be of value.

You claim the protester gave no reasons for claiming it's pointless, but equally, you gave no reasons for why it is of value.

And just in case I need to say it again, I'm merely providing my analysis of this situation through my model of how the community works. I personally am passing no judgment on how HN works, nor on the community's interests and/or actions.

> If no one agreed with them then theirs would be the only flag and there would be no effect. If several people agreed then there would be several flags, and that's what appears to happen.

It would be good if users were given not only flag, but also unflag possibility. As it is right now, it takes only a few users to flag an article to disappear, although there might be hundreds users that would be opposed to that that can affect the flagging process because there is no unflag option.

There is an unflag option, it's voting that can't be undone, and you can't downvote a submission.

There is unflag option where you can unflag your own flag, but it doesn't counter other peoples flags, IIRC. I'm not sure about that now, since flag right has been removed from my account some time ago, and I don't see neither flag nor unflag links anymore.

Why should you ever be able to undo someone else's flag?

Why would someone else's flag affect my front page?

I really, really don't understand your question.

Consider your front page. It's the same as everyone else's front page. The ranking of the items is a function of how old each item is, how many points it has, how many flags it's got, whether it's trip a filter, etc.

Now I flag an item. That penalizes the item and causes its computed value to fall. This in turn may cause its position in the rankings to fall, and thus will affect the front page.

But the front page is your front page, and hence my flagging an item can affect "your" front page.

How can you think it would be otherwise?

>If no one agreed with them then theirs would be the only flag and there would be no effect. If several people agreed then there would be several flags, and that's what appears to happen.

Or a moderator. Or something else that's nixing submissions.

>If you feel strongly that the data you presented is on topic then perhaps you would fare better not simply to post a bare list, but write a blog post about why short names like this are of value to startups, and how having a short domain name can radically improve your chances, and how you wrote a script to create the list, and now you're sharing it because you believe it to be of value.

Actionable data isn't useful? From the comments:

"Amazed how many good names are still available. Looking to do a real-estate startup? How about: crib.io (available)"

"I was amazed that nag.io was still available. I snatched it!"

Let me ask you this:

What good is it doing you to argue with me that this submission was of value, and shouldn't've been flagged?

"Let me summarise what I think you're saying: * You saw value in it. * A few others clearly saw value in it. * Still others saw it as having negative value. * The ones who thought it had negative value flagged it. * They should not have done so. * Something should be done. Are you going to suggest what should be done?"

This submission got the same treatment. It would seem, even trying to talk about change can't be done. A fair vote taken down.

Meta-discussions are almost always flagged and downvoted very quickly. If you'd been around for longer and paid attention then you'd know that. In particular, meta-discussion without specific, definite suggestions as to how to improve things get given very short shrift.

And look, here is an item with 7 points and 22 (and now more) comments. Again, points/comments is very small, so it will disappear quickly.

And again, this discussion has very little actual value. let me try to summarise how it might appear:

* 14 hours ago you registered your username

* 7 hours ago you submitted an item that appears to have been flagged off the front page

* 2 hours ago you submit an item about how unfair that is, and how everyone should have instantly realised how valuable your submission was.

* Now you complain that your complaint is being flagged.

* When I explain about how things work, you just continually come back and say that it shouldn't be like that.

Well, that's how it might appear. Welcome to HN.

Added in edit ...

In this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5685591 you said:

    ... it seems to only take one person
    to vehemently object.

No, it takes several people responding to what they see as a valid objection. One objection on its own, vehement or otherwise, doesn't have any real effect. It only matters if, on balance, people agree and take the trouble to flag it.

I would hope -- but this isn't going to happen, by the looks of it -- that people would see the discussion and then not call out posts as being "pointless" or hype, or like Reddit, or link-bait, just because it's not to their particular liking. There shouldn't be a lexical kill switch for submissions.

Or if it's moderators, they should re-think censorship as a reasonable action for posts that may not be to their taste.

Let me summarise what I think you're saying:

* You saw value in it.

* A few others clearly saw value in it.

* Still others saw it as having negative value.

* The ones who thought it had negative value flagged it.

* They should not have done so.

* Something should be done.

Are you going to suggest what should be done?

It's not dead, because I can still see it, and I haven't got "ShowDead" turned on. It's not censored, it's just been flagged.

You don't seem to understand the culture here, and you seem unwilling to try to learn. Meta-discussions are almost invariably flagged, because all too often other forums drown in a self-inflicted morass of navel-gazing.

Are you really surprised that people are flagging your complaint about how not everyone realized the value of your second ever submission? And now I see you've made another complaint.

I've tried to help you see how things work here, but you haven't yet even got enough karma to see the "flag" link, you appear not to have read the guidelines, and all you seem to be doing is complaining that people are behaving in ways you don't understand.

If you insist on putting your own uninformed interpretations on things and not listening to explanations from people who have been here five years, I don't know how to help you.

The top comment on that story explained why it was a dull, uninteresting story.

Colin has very patiently reasoned with you about what may have happened (for the record, I didn't flag that story, and I would never have visited it at all but for the question I'm seeing in this thread). There is no reason to be argumentative with Colin; he is just trying to help.

I agree that lists of three-letter domains, or four-letter domains, with this or that top-level domain suffix make for dreadfully boring submissions. I think some people massively overestimate the usefulness of a cute domain name. Hacker News gets plenty of interest even with a domain name like

news.ycombinator.com

and other sites too have better eyeball-attraction value than their names might suggest.