reply on: Give the dead horse another whack \ stacker news ~meta

277 sats \ 9 replies \ @nemo 19 Sep 2023 \ parent \ on: Give the dead horse another whack meta

deleted by author

444 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 19 Sep 2023

I guess we could add a collapsed text form field to link posts.

Currently, we are even penalizing OPs who comment their own link post (like @hn, lol) since you then have to pay again. Additionally, I think I even noticed while working on @hn that the link post costs 1 sat and then the first comment costs 10 sats. So it's 11x as expensive currently, lol

179 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b 19 Sep 2023

do we hate typing into this form field?

It's not the typing. This comment thread isn't the context of someone who is submitting a link. Product design is about embodying the appropriate context at every step.

I agree it might be worth experimenting with given everyone's feelings around it. My intuition says this is better implemented as a gentle nudge/reminder, e.g. "posts with a thoughtful comment by the OP earn 300% more sats on average."

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @nemo 19 Sep 2023

deleted by author

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek 19 Sep 2023

I agree it might be worth experimenting with given everyone's feelings around it.

Yep, maybe hide a text input field for a first comment in options?

I think we shouldn't at least penalize OPs commenting their links with an additional fee of 10 sats (just confirmed locally on 654ecaf)

179 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek 19 Sep 2023

or make an exception in the spam interval for this - probably required even with the optional text input field

179 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 19 Sep 2023

This self-reply spam interval was created because people complained about OPs commenting on their own posts 2-5 times adding other links and context (not commentary) ... and so they would be disappointed when they opened an item and there wasn't a discussion.