It did work. The "decision" was to try changing the rules for a short time to see what we could learn by doing so, and we learned a lot. We ended it early because (a) the learning stabilized and (b) there were costs to continuing.

It's strange to me that so many people heard "just for a week" as "forever" and are continuing to comment as if those mean the same thing. The internet is weird.

Will you be making a "Tell HN" saying the experiment has ended with your thoughts? Are you okay replying to comments by users who do not know the experiment has ended?

I would be comparing a) data after the first announcement b) data after your comment in an unrelated thread saying the experiement is over c) data after the week is over and d) data after you write the promised lessons learnt post.

Yes, we decided to try distributing the info in the threads and see how well that works. So far it seems to be working well, because (a) there aren't that many such comments (as of a few minutes ago there aren't any that haven't been replied to), and (b) nearly all of them are now getting replied to correctly before we even see them. Together with the fact that HN has gone back to approximately normal re political stories and flagging, that makes me believe the information is working its way through.

Making an announcement a la Tell HN doesn't necessarily disseminate information. In this case it would almost certainly turn into a huge rehash of the original argument, with new information getting drowned out in the process. There are so many counterintutive effects to this, and we're still learning--indeed I feel like we're still taking baby steps. Turning up the volume definitely doesn't necessarily turn up the communication.