A few bits I've observed, seen mentioned, or occasionally learned through email exchanges with dang over the years:

Most of the moderation action on the site comes from readers --- what's voted up or flagged off the submissions queue, content moderation, and flags. If I'm remembering correctly, "Flagged" means that it's user actions, "Dead" can be either reader or moderator intercession (see, e.g., <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12984398> and <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8628891> and <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30273707>). Users may also be banned, which will be tagged to "dead" comments or submissions.

For specific actions, such as title edits or URL substitutions, email the mods: hn@ycombinator.com I've been told that including the submission or comment ID ("34920400" is the submission ID for this post) is useful as there are automated tools that latch into this and assist with the moderation task itself.

I try to use the following format for most of my mod correspondence:

Subject: <Issue>: <item title as presently presented> <item ID>

Body:

<post URL>
<link URL>

Brief issue description, e.g., clickbait title, bad automunging ("how", enumerations, and a few other terms often get truncated.), link disambiguation suggesting a better source, etc.

If possible: a suggested fix. Mostly as this makes the mod's action easier --- they can use my suggestion *or* select something different, but don't have to start from scratch in identifying a solution.

If another member's identified the issue, I'll usually point to that and the relevant comment.

Close with "Thanks".

I keep those emails as short, clear, and standardised as possible. They're not arguments, they're suggested improvements. My suggestions are usually (though not always) accepted.

Example description from a recent comment: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34768459> (I'd either copied that from, or to, the email I'd sent the mods, full email would have included the title and post URL as described above.)

Issues I raise are usually title or URL related, and occasionally nominations for the 2nd-chance queue (see <https://news.ycombinator.com/pool>). I've found that most spam and self-promoting submissions / users tend to get picked up without email, though I'll note cases that seem to have been missed. I'll rarely highlight a grossly-offending comment though those tend to get noticed by mods in most cases. My email frequency ranges from a few per week to a few per month.

There are numerous automated features, including some spam and dupe detection, weighting of various domains, and some "cooling off" algorithms for deeply-nested threads / highly-active commenters, and some stricter standards for "green" (new) accounts. These seem to work without direct moderator interaction in most cases, though they may misfire.

Searching the HN archives for dang's comments (and specific keywords or topics) is a good way to get a fuller sense of site guidelines and standards than is explained in the Guidelines and FAQ (linked at the bottom of most pages). Dang frequently links earlier comments himself.

I usually read with "showdead" on, and may flag or vouch dead comments as seems appropriate. Occasionally (rarely) emailing a vouch for something that seems particularly unfairly killed.

If there's an area with which I've disagreements with dang over moderation, it's that I'd grant far more latitude to negative emotion and tone in comments from a viewpoint that's disadvantaged, intellectually rigorous, and hews closer to truth. There's a thread from over a year ago now ... which still bothers me, in that the original submission itself was a shallow ideological rant. Dang's admonishment in that case was itself flagged (which I believe is highly unusual). I do understand that HN's core consideration is "intellectual curiosity and thoughtful conversation" (see: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404>). Though there are times I feel that's better served by highlighting grave faults in source material or earlier comments.

It's worth noting that that's probably the strongest disagreement I've had in my time on HN, certainly for many years, so it's exceptional in that regard. And that the instance is arguably close to the border, with my disagreement being as to which side it fell. I'll occasionally sense the same friction occurring in other threads. I've observed for some time that there are issues HN seems unable to discuss meaningfully, a frustration I've seen dang hint at occasionally as well.

But in general HN has been and remains among the best general discussion sites I've known online since the mid-aughts. And I've been engaged in online discussions since the 1980s.