Hacker News is a masterpiece(thesumup.substack.com)
thesumup.substack.com
Hacker News is a masterpiece
https://thesumup.substack.com/p/hacker-news-is-a-masterpiece
128 comments
I also find that HackerNews doesn't suffer from groupthink as bad as other platforms. It is common to find Opinion A the top voted comment, and Opinion B which is completely contrary will be the most upvoted child comment, because both present valid points.
It feels more like an adult conversation where people can agree to disagree and carry on with their lives.
The high standard of moderation also helps.
It feels more like an adult conversation where people can agree to disagree and carry on with their lives.
The high standard of moderation also helps.
I very often upvote pairs of well-written comments that challenge each other, even if I disagree with one or both of them.
Beside promoting quality reasoning and references to interesting sources, I have an egotistic motive: bring more attention to the civilized discussion and thus get fresh opinions and references to help me make my own opinion.
Beside promoting quality reasoning and references to interesting sources, I have an egotistic motive: bring more attention to the civilized discussion and thus get fresh opinions and references to help me make my own opinion.
This is one of the reasons that I upvote comments I disagree with. If it’s posited even a bit well, it’s valuable.
Agreed. IMO, the down-vote should be used for comments that don’t add to the discussion or devolve to personal attacks, not to express disagreement.
That's not just your opinion, that's surely exactly the intention of the downvote option. If I were to suggest one small change to HN it would be to have to select your reason for downvoting (or flagging), such that "I disagree" is clearly not one of the available options.
Well there you go. I feel like I have a hat to eat now.
People would still tend to (ab)use the downvote button as an outlet to express their discontent / disagreement. Just human nature, we can't all be robots.
To be clear: I frequently find myself undoing my downvote actions after a moment of reflection, in cases where I realize I've done an impulsive downvote because I didn't "like" the comment. I'm not perfect (first to admit: far from it), but I do try to be a good member of and positive force in our community.
Really appreciate you folks, most of the time this is a really cool place to spend time. Also, @dang deserves a lot of credit for keeping things headed in the right direction.
To be clear: I frequently find myself undoing my downvote actions after a moment of reflection, in cases where I realize I've done an impulsive downvote because I didn't "like" the comment. I'm not perfect (first to admit: far from it), but I do try to be a good member of and positive force in our community.
Really appreciate you folks, most of the time this is a really cool place to spend time. Also, @dang deserves a lot of credit for keeping things headed in the right direction.
...that's surely exactly the intention of the downvote option.
Someone will be along shortly with link to Paul Graham writing that a downvote button can be used for disagreement. I disagree, so I don't have that one in my bookmarks, sorry.
Someone will be along shortly with link to Paul Graham writing that a downvote button can be used for disagreement. I disagree, so I don't have that one in my bookmarks, sorry.
It's not just Graham; it's current site moderation policy, and the rationale has been explained repeatedly (to wit: we don't want meta-discussions about the validity of votes, which are boring and outcompete substantive conversations, since everyone can come up with an opinion about a vote on the fly).
I knew the policy about meta discussion, but on a thread that itself was meta, talking about the thing using the thing, I figured I'd lay out one comment about commenting. I discovered, on closer inspection, that the guidelines also ask one not leave comments about the why of flagging a story. I rarely flag stories and have been guilty once of doing just that.
[deleted]
I also find HN unique in this regard, it’s so refreshing to have a platform where people of differing opinions can actually communicate without being downvoted to oblivion.
The other day I posted a differing opinion from the norm on Reddit and was downvoted out of the room. It was a well thought totally reasonable opinion.
What does it mean for these wildly popular platforms if we are unable to have adult conversations?
The other day I posted a differing opinion from the norm on Reddit and was downvoted out of the room. It was a well thought totally reasonable opinion.
What does it mean for these wildly popular platforms if we are unable to have adult conversations?
I remember seeing data on Reddit users some time back. You're not dealing with adults, in general. It's mostly bots, kids, and young adults who still live in their parents' basement. You shouldn't go to a Fortnite convention and expect to have adult conversations, either.
I invite you to read HN with "showdead", you are bound to quickly change your high opinion. The amount of petty flagging and downvotes to suppress diverging opinions is staggering.
If you see a [dead] comment that shouldn't be dead, you can vouch for it, which (when enough users do that) brings it back from the [dead]. See https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#cvouch. We added that feature years ago because banned accounts sometimes post good things.
If you see an account whose posts are nearly all [dead] - which means either they're banned or running afoul of our software somehow - and you don't think they deserve that fate, you can always email [email protected] and ask us to take a look. I've actually been working on a ban review system that will allow us to catch cases where accounts have been making good posts and don't need to be banned anymore. Though in the Dostoevskian underworld of internet dynamics, I have seen several cases of banned accounts which, as soon as they noticed they weren't banned, immediately begin violating the site rules in the most garish way until we ban them...apparently indicating that they prefer that state.
Please make sure you're up on https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, though, because if an account has been breaking the site guidelines, you can spare yourself the trouble of emailing—we're just going to point that out as the reason why the account needs to remain banned.
If you see an account whose posts are nearly all [dead] - which means either they're banned or running afoul of our software somehow - and you don't think they deserve that fate, you can always email [email protected] and ask us to take a look. I've actually been working on a ban review system that will allow us to catch cases where accounts have been making good posts and don't need to be banned anymore. Though in the Dostoevskian underworld of internet dynamics, I have seen several cases of banned accounts which, as soon as they noticed they weren't banned, immediately begin violating the site rules in the most garish way until we ban them...apparently indicating that they prefer that state.
Please make sure you're up on https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, though, because if an account has been breaking the site guidelines, you can spare yourself the trouble of emailing—we're just going to point that out as the reason why the account needs to remain banned.
I browse with "showdead", and I find it to be a constant reminder of why such things are necessary. It is rare that I find a shadow-banned chucklehead who isn't an actual chucklehead blow-hard, and when I do I let them know (if possible) that they might want to hit up the moderators. Can't remember the last time I felt it necessary to do that, though.
I do read HN with "showdead", and I wouldn't say that it's staggering - IMHO, maybe 1/5 or 1/10 shouldn't be dead.
+1.
The "you're posting too fast" thing when you get mobbed is another terrible feature.
The "you're posting too fast" thing when you get mobbed is another terrible feature.
The main problem is not that content on other sites is 'being filtered to suit my desires', but rather that content that THEY want you to see is often being shoved down your throat, whether you like it or not. Likewise they censor content that THEY don't want you to see.
There are just too many news stories that show how media sites and social media are being manipulated to push the agenda favorable to those who control them.
There are just too many news stories that show how media sites and social media are being manipulated to push the agenda favorable to those who control them.
I love Hacker News because it's a place people share their expertise. People usually don't get away with b.s. because other experts will correct them. So many times I've read an interesting article and then checked the comments to find out why it was flawed and or conversely, why my interest was well placed. HN can be a tough crowd for your medium article or weekend project, but it wouldn't be interesting or useful if it wasn't. Diversity of thought is encouraged but personal attacks are not. It's a good balance. I'd like to thank dang for his hard work in making HN what it is day in and day out.
Surprisingly comments sections often have this - if you can wade through them.
Watching a video on a repair on YouTube? Before commencing check the comments and see if there’s anyone pointing something out. Often there is and you can find tips or pitfalls to avoid.
The value of HN-style moderation becomes clear when reading years old threads - most everything is on point and relevant even decades later.
Watching a video on a repair on YouTube? Before commencing check the comments and see if there’s anyone pointing something out. Often there is and you can find tips or pitfalls to avoid.
The value of HN-style moderation becomes clear when reading years old threads - most everything is on point and relevant even decades later.
… and then you hit a COVID related thread and realize it’s really just Reddit for people with more self confidence.
Epidemiology isn’t an obvious core competence for a site named Hacker News, though.
IMHO the best part of HN is anything that benefits from a perspective on software history because somebody will jump in with “Yeah I was there at Sun in 1986…” and tell the story.
The closer it gets to everyday politics or JavaScript framework du jour, the worse the signal-to-noise ratio.
IMHO the best part of HN is anything that benefits from a perspective on software history because somebody will jump in with “Yeah I was there at Sun in 1986…” and tell the story.
The closer it gets to everyday politics or JavaScript framework du jour, the worse the signal-to-noise ratio.
In general, I don't think hn is great for politics.
In general, people here seem good at using articles submitted as a prompt for discussions. I think this works wonderfully for tech as lots of people have interesting adjacent knowledge and it helps put things into context. The thing with this though is that reading the article properly isn't always necessary to join the conversation. For politics, I find that people tend to fixate on certain points while ignoring the rest of an article's argument.
In general, people here seem good at using articles submitted as a prompt for discussions. I think this works wonderfully for tech as lots of people have interesting adjacent knowledge and it helps put things into context. The thing with this though is that reading the article properly isn't always necessary to join the conversation. For politics, I find that people tend to fixate on certain points while ignoring the rest of an article's argument.
Or cryptocurrency-related. Or Europe-related.
All threads, where reading the comments usually gives you very little information besides how toxic a decent chunk of the userbase can be.
All threads, where reading the comments usually gives you very little information besides how toxic a decent chunk of the userbase can be.
Indeed. People have a hard time knowing when they are going outside their areas of expertise and sometimes extrapolate their confidence in one area into others and can sometimes be right and other times wildly wrong. Diet and exercise might be one such topic, for example. Economics another. I'm not hammering speculation or suggestions, I'm specially referring to confident assertions.
Maybe you skipped reading my sentence "People usually don't get away with b.s. because other experts will correct them."
My point is that a lot of them aren’t experts, they’re just educated enough to sound like one.
To me, this is why HN is sometimes worse than Reddit. At least with Reddit, it's pretty easy to tell when someone is objectively wrong. With HN, I feel sometimes, after reading something convincing, that perhaps I've just been hypnotized by good rhetoric.
I see people making objectively wrong comments here on HN all the time in my own niches. So, I'm sure when I'm reading something outside my niche here that I'm reading BS - but it doesn't read like BS.
The only thing outside my niche that I know I can trust here is tech stuff, and that's why I started coming here many years ago. But I've also seen HN's quality go down over the past few years, slowly becoming Reddit-like, unfortunately. I think dang's emphasis on discourse style will ultimately keep HN's quality satisfactory, though, no matter how many Redditors migrate here.
HN will probably remain the best forum for discussions on a wide variety of subjects for the near future.
I see people making objectively wrong comments here on HN all the time in my own niches. So, I'm sure when I'm reading something outside my niche here that I'm reading BS - but it doesn't read like BS.
The only thing outside my niche that I know I can trust here is tech stuff, and that's why I started coming here many years ago. But I've also seen HN's quality go down over the past few years, slowly becoming Reddit-like, unfortunately. I think dang's emphasis on discourse style will ultimately keep HN's quality satisfactory, though, no matter how many Redditors migrate here.
HN will probably remain the best forum for discussions on a wide variety of subjects for the near future.
> I feel sometimes, after reading something convincing
I feel like I get good arguments from both sides here, then it's up to me to decide. The pros and cons arguments are usually better here than any other site open to the public
I feel like I get good arguments from both sides here, then it's up to me to decide. The pros and cons arguments are usually better here than any other site open to the public
I get it. Well, I don't take HN comments as the last word on something I need to know
Sure is the first and last website I check every day. I don't know of any other website which is so straight forward, hasn't shafted itself down to hell and has been as consistent as this.
home page, cmd+click article, cmd+click comments, repeat.
Because the comments are often as insightful if not more insightful as the article linked.
I still miss the count of upvotes since they removed that though, it helped sift through the comments quicker. :)
home page, cmd+click article, cmd+click comments, repeat.
Because the comments are often as insightful if not more insightful as the article linked.
I still miss the count of upvotes since they removed that though, it helped sift through the comments quicker. :)
Agree completely and browse in an almost identical way - particularly useful if I'm about to hop on a tube! It's the only site I've visited virtually every day since I joined (2010) - that really says something. Nothing else has stood anywhere near that kind of test of time.
The genius is in the revenue model. It isn't hard, in theory, to build a website like HN (well, in practice it probably is - but not outside the top 10% of web coders). The tricky part is why should people like pg and dang sink so much time into growing the garden and keeping it pruned.
The hard part is to set up a situation where the website administrator benefits from having a large technocratic-oriented community that, as far as I can tell, loathes ads. And possibly images. Tough market to sell to.
The hard part is to set up a situation where the website administrator benefits from having a large technocratic-oriented community that, as far as I can tell, loathes ads. And possibly images. Tough market to sell to.
It’s also interesting to consider that with two (?) full time employees and a few servers you can support something like HN.
Compared to its reach, that’s surprisingly cheap.
And “hacker news” isn’t even the domain!
Compared to its reach, that’s surprisingly cheap.
And “hacker news” isn’t even the domain!
> The hard part is to set up a situation where the website administrator benefits from having a large technocratic-oriented community that, as far as I can tell, loathes ads. And possibly images. Tough market to sell to.
The market HN is selling itself to is misanthropic nerds who want to be the next Musk or Zuckerberg. The community's loathing of ads and images and the whole anti-modernist zeitgeist pays for itself in hacker "street cred" when someone's crazy idea makes a return on YC's investment.
The market HN is selling itself to is misanthropic nerds who want to be the next Musk or Zuckerberg. The community's loathing of ads and images and the whole anti-modernist zeitgeist pays for itself in hacker "street cred" when someone's crazy idea makes a return on YC's investment.
Many online communities have financial value because they trade eyeballs for ad dollars. What is the financial value of a digital community like HN? Is there a way to estimate its worth in dollars?
I've written in the past about how we tend to think about HN vis-à-vis YC's interests, if anyone wants to read about that: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
Beautiful. Thank you.
> (1) HN's only value to YC is the community; (2) the community only comes here to the extent that it finds HN interesting; (3) therefore, to optimize HN's value, we have to optimize it for being interesting. Moderating for parochial interest (e.g. suppressing things that some $ingroup doesn't like—VCs or whoever else) would make HN less interesting, so we don't. We also don't do it because (a) it would be wrong and (b) it would feel bad, but those concerns don't belong in a cynical argument. YC's business interests, however, do belong in such an argument, and it's very much in YC's business interest to keep this community as happy as possible. That's a sort of miracle if you think about it—a freak of economic nature—so we should all enjoy it for as long as possible.
> (1) HN's only value to YC is the community; (2) the community only comes here to the extent that it finds HN interesting; (3) therefore, to optimize HN's value, we have to optimize it for being interesting. Moderating for parochial interest (e.g. suppressing things that some $ingroup doesn't like—VCs or whoever else) would make HN less interesting, so we don't. We also don't do it because (a) it would be wrong and (b) it would feel bad, but those concerns don't belong in a cynical argument. YC's business interests, however, do belong in such an argument, and it's very much in YC's business interest to keep this community as happy as possible. That's a sort of miracle if you think about it—a freak of economic nature—so we should all enjoy it for as long as possible.
Other than someone buying it for the prestige, I doubt that HN is worth much in itself. Other than email addresses, there is no data of value to mine that I can think of.
The only way to make money without digging the site's grave is to give a boost to posts advertising something. It has to be done infrequently and in a very subtle way so the users don't notice, and they will have a hard time finding advertisers without people finding out that they do it.
So yeah, I don't think its really worth it.
The only way to make money without digging the site's grave is to give a boost to posts advertising something. It has to be done infrequently and in a very subtle way so the users don't notice, and they will have a hard time finding advertisers without people finding out that they do it.
So yeah, I don't think its really worth it.
See, that’s really depressing to me. I think it brings financial value to Paul Graham but indirectly.
I'm pretty sure Dan is doing this work because he loves it.
(It's been almost a decade since Graham was involved with HN.)
(It's been almost a decade since Graham was involved with HN.)
HN is still the best tech news site for me and discussions on what I consider general topics on HN are better than on any social media site.
Unfortunately it is consistently getting worse. 10 years ago a message would only be mass-downvoted for tone, but never for specific opinion expressed or defended. So HN would be a place for interesting discussions without flamewars.
Not anymore. Now I seldom bother posting opinions on touchy topics that are against the "SF bay mainstream" view -- no point of wasting time it the post gets hidden in minutes. On other topics it is still a good discussion place where one doesn't have to fear expressing a minority opinion. My 2c.
Unfortunately it is consistently getting worse. 10 years ago a message would only be mass-downvoted for tone, but never for specific opinion expressed or defended. So HN would be a place for interesting discussions without flamewars.
Not anymore. Now I seldom bother posting opinions on touchy topics that are against the "SF bay mainstream" view -- no point of wasting time it the post gets hidden in minutes. On other topics it is still a good discussion place where one doesn't have to fear expressing a minority opinion. My 2c.
I'm sure there are some HN users who just downvote everything they disagree with. However, I also think commenters with “minority opinions” need to realize that the onus is on them to justify what they say.
A comment which says “the earth is round” does not and should not need to justify that position. Most of the community already thinks the earth is round, so commenters don't need to spend time explaining why.
By contrast, a comment which claims “the earth is flat” had better damn well include why the earth is flat, and that argument had better be pretty convincing! Who knows, perhaps the flat-earthers were right all along and one of them will open my eyes some day—but the onus is on them.
To take a more realistic example, I’ll sometimes see HN comments which are (in my estimation) based on the premise that government is inherently evil. Perhaps this is just an accepted truism in conservative circles, but it's not in mine, nor is it something I believe. So if I see a comment which assumes "all governments are bad" as a starting point, I will likely downvote it!
(Please, let's not turn this thread into a discussion on the merits of government, I just needed a real-world example.)
My goal is to downvote stupid arguments and upvote constructive ones, regardless of whether I agree—but due to the above, the two end up being correlated in practice.
A comment which says “the earth is round” does not and should not need to justify that position. Most of the community already thinks the earth is round, so commenters don't need to spend time explaining why.
By contrast, a comment which claims “the earth is flat” had better damn well include why the earth is flat, and that argument had better be pretty convincing! Who knows, perhaps the flat-earthers were right all along and one of them will open my eyes some day—but the onus is on them.
To take a more realistic example, I’ll sometimes see HN comments which are (in my estimation) based on the premise that government is inherently evil. Perhaps this is just an accepted truism in conservative circles, but it's not in mine, nor is it something I believe. So if I see a comment which assumes "all governments are bad" as a starting point, I will likely downvote it!
(Please, let's not turn this thread into a discussion on the merits of government, I just needed a real-world example.)
My goal is to downvote stupid arguments and upvote constructive ones, regardless of whether I agree—but due to the above, the two end up being correlated in practice.
Something I've often seen on HN (and really, all forums) is a problem similar to the X-Y problem.
For example, someone might say "Video games are a waste of time!", and people will try to defend them, citing examples of games that require a lot of thought, or tell an amazing story, etc., but they respond with things that just feel like non-sequitors, and it's only after a dozen comments or so that we REALLY find out that the original commenter feels that all forms of entertainment are a waste of time, and that everybody should spend all their waking hours either being productive or learning something.
For example, someone might say "Video games are a waste of time!", and people will try to defend them, citing examples of games that require a lot of thought, or tell an amazing story, etc., but they respond with things that just feel like non-sequitors, and it's only after a dozen comments or so that we REALLY find out that the original commenter feels that all forms of entertainment are a waste of time, and that everybody should spend all their waking hours either being productive or learning something.
You really think so? I think discussion and moderation is consistently good. Perhaps the 'SF bay mainstream' is more just a reflection of the HN audience in general?
I do. Before (in PG's times) one could express an unpopular view and folks would jump in en masse to refute it on merits. Posts in a lively discussion would not get downvoted for content that doesn't fit a narrative.
Now minority opinions, even rationally expressed are just downvoted, which discourages writing them at all.
I think HN is slowly losing ability to have a discussion with people who hold different views. Now it is "my votes are stronger than your votes". Which is sad. Mt 2c.
Now minority opinions, even rationally expressed are just downvoted, which discourages writing them at all.
I think HN is slowly losing ability to have a discussion with people who hold different views. Now it is "my votes are stronger than your votes". Which is sad. Mt 2c.
I don’t know the numbers, but I suspect between the PG era and now, the size of this community has increased by at least an order of magnitude. Probably a lot more.
For sure things have evolved, but this site and community is still working afaict. I suppose it depends on what minority opinions you’re referring to.
For sure things have evolved, but this site and community is still working afaict. I suppose it depends on what minority opinions you’re referring to.
I don't have an opinion about the evolution of the community, other than that it is larger, but moderation on HN is 1,000x better than it was before the Dan era: it's much more transparent, and it's much less capricious
I can't downvote yet (and will probably start over when I can[0]) but when I have in the past I reserved downvotes for comments made in bad faith (straw/steelmanning, etc).
I will admit I would sometimes feel compelled to downvote minority opinions instead of refuting them. On some subjects (eg abortion), I have seen the same opinions and arguments made for decades. I'm tired of seeing the same poorly thought out arguments again and again and again and again.
However I try to hold back and just ignore those comments these days. (Not always successfully..)
0: I use HN exclusively on mobile and the downvote button is too easy to press accidentally, so the privilege is actually a curse.
I will admit I would sometimes feel compelled to downvote minority opinions instead of refuting them. On some subjects (eg abortion), I have seen the same opinions and arguments made for decades. I'm tired of seeing the same poorly thought out arguments again and again and again and again.
However I try to hold back and just ignore those comments these days. (Not always successfully..)
0: I use HN exclusively on mobile and the downvote button is too easy to press accidentally, so the privilege is actually a curse.
You can now. I looked at your profile. I'm impressed. You got to downvoting capability in 51 days. It took me like 12 years. Of course, I left HN for like 3 years, but still!
[deleted]
The internet is overwhelmingly filled with low quality tribalism, and one common format is "woe is me, the rational conservative underdog, shouted down and censored by the evil West coast elites", and of course the many politically reversed examples. I think people on HN are understandably jumpy about keeping that kind of stuff off HN, even though they may jump the gun sometimes and unfairly lump in things that merely smell like that, and aren't necessarily going in that direction yet.
And, while your observation probably does correspond with the political direction that such action leans, I've seen tons of cases of what I think are "jump the gun" downvotes from both directions.
And, while your observation probably does correspond with the political direction that such action leans, I've seen tons of cases of what I think are "jump the gun" downvotes from both directions.
The internet is overwhelmingly filled with echo chambers. And there was, earlier, a special care taken for HN to avoid this fate and create a site where minority views can be debated. PG wrote a lot about the need to allow and protect non-standard opinions even if we sometimes find them uncomfortable. This view influenced choices at the earlier HN.
Such content does not have to rise to the top of the page -- posts bubble down quickly in the absence of upvotes. But if, when it does (because enough people were interested in reading and commenting on it), it gets killed by flagging instead of a debate on merits we nudge HN in the direction of becoming yet another echo chamber. And a path toward becoming another echo chamber on the internet leads to a quicker irrelevance than most contributors realize. My 2c.
Such content does not have to rise to the top of the page -- posts bubble down quickly in the absence of upvotes. But if, when it does (because enough people were interested in reading and commenting on it), it gets killed by flagging instead of a debate on merits we nudge HN in the direction of becoming yet another echo chamber. And a path toward becoming another echo chamber on the internet leads to a quicker irrelevance than most contributors realize. My 2c.
The problem is the double standard. It's only ever conservatives who are criticized for this kind of pointless politicking and tribalism, while it goes unchallenged from the other side.
No, it's not only conservatives who are criticized. You just notice it when they are. Your brain has a finite capacity for keeping score on this kind of stuff; this is one of the tricks it plays on you to keep you from being anxious about that.
Interesting that this comment has two replies:
yours: "they aren't criticised more, this is bias of observation on your part"
other comment: "that's b/c they are more tribal!"
Observation bias exists, but that doesn't mean there isn't a moderation bias, one way or another. However, I think the distinction of "conservative" is maybe a red-herring - it invites tribalism.
As an example, I think people refusing to wear mandated COVID masks are provocative/incorrect. I also believe the authorities (gov and media/corps) are incorrect, and actively biasing scientific discourse.
So, is my opinion conservative, or not?
yours: "they aren't criticised more, this is bias of observation on your part"
other comment: "that's b/c they are more tribal!"
Observation bias exists, but that doesn't mean there isn't a moderation bias, one way or another. However, I think the distinction of "conservative" is maybe a red-herring - it invites tribalism.
As an example, I think people refusing to wear mandated COVID masks are provocative/incorrect. I also believe the authorities (gov and media/corps) are incorrect, and actively biasing scientific discourse.
So, is my opinion conservative, or not?
Why is it "interesting" that two people have different opinions? It sounds like you're doing that thing where somebody points at one ostensible counterexample with a bit of snideness ("You say global warming is real, but there's a historic snowstorm outside. How interesting."), but I could be misinterpreting.
I'm not sure how inciting a GW myth is at all relevant.
It's interesting b/c someone who appears anti-conservative also agrees, implicitly, that conservatives are represented as more tribal on HN. But that person shouldn't be affected by pro-conservative observation bias (unless they are pro-conservative despite thinking of them as tribal).
It's interesting b/c someone who appears anti-conservative also agrees, implicitly, that conservatives are represented as more tribal on HN. But that person shouldn't be affected by pro-conservative observation bias (unless they are pro-conservative despite thinking of them as tribal).
I don't know what you're asking, but my reply isn't ideologically specific. It applies just as well to liberals. I'm specifically not saying either side is more tribal; I'm saying that we have cognitive biases that make us sensitive to corrections of opinions we agree with, and insensitive to corrections of opinions we disagree with.
But you didn't say there might be cognitive bias.
You stated there was, and implied there is no such bias on HN? I'm not so sure.
My question was to imply - there may be talking points, or "biases" considered conservative/liberal, but this is an ambiguous thing. Often, full perspectives are a mixture of both, but people might still be censored on the "perception" of their tribe, or on individual points. As such, the perceived tribes are not a useful distinction to make.
You stated there was, and implied there is no such bias on HN? I'm not so sure.
My question was to imply - there may be talking points, or "biases" considered conservative/liberal, but this is an ambiguous thing. Often, full perspectives are a mixture of both, but people might still be censored on the "perception" of their tribe, or on individual points. As such, the perceived tribes are not a useful distinction to make.
I just told you what I meant.
Conservatives get criticized for tribalism more than the left because they're simply so much more tribal.
All you have to do is look at how many Trump flags you still see compared to Biden flags.
Also, believe or not, the far left dislikes Biden.
All you have to do is look at how many Trump flags you still see compared to Biden flags.
Also, believe or not, the far left dislikes Biden.
Agreed - the accusation of tribalism may be unfairly over-applied in many cases, like most political criticisms, but, also like many political criticisms, it is extrapolated from an opinion that is more reasonable (regardless of whether it is definitely true), which is that conservatives have, on par, too much party loyalty, and liberals have, on par, too little party loyalty.
> and liberals have, on par, too little party loyalty.
My knee-jerk reaction is "this is a good thing", but this is wrong.
The left's lack of party loyalty costs us elections. The farther left hates the "Vote blue no matter who" mantra, which allowed Trump to win 2016. The right votes red no matter what because they think every democrat is a socialist.
My knee-jerk reaction is "this is a good thing", but this is wrong.
The left's lack of party loyalty costs us elections. The farther left hates the "Vote blue no matter who" mantra, which allowed Trump to win 2016. The right votes red no matter what because they think every democrat is a socialist.
Downvoting on HN has become irrational. Perfectly innocuous, factual statements now get downvoted. Harmless opinions get downvoted. Personal experiences get downvoted. Not because the commentator has said something untrue, not because the commentator is expressing hate or encouraging violence: just that the commentator said something that someone doesn’t like.
As a result, I now spend much more time delivering upvotes to downvoted comments. It’s a pain in the ass, because I have to log in to do it, and I’d much rather remain logged-out because it hides all the crap that dang has to deal with.
As a result, I now spend much more time delivering upvotes to downvoted comments. It’s a pain in the ass, because I have to log in to do it, and I’d much rather remain logged-out because it hides all the crap that dang has to deal with.
Downvotes don't feel much different to me than they did in the beginning, but HN is definitely much busier now, and voting can only ever be probabilistically accurate, so you're much more apt to see a janky vote now than you were in 2009. Give it time; the votes usually even out.
I agree, but I don't think this is a reflection of the website as much as it is a reflection of society as a whole. A society becoming less tolerant of opinions counter to those which the mainstream media spin. Cancel culture is a phenomenon which really does trickle down to individuals and their behaviour, both online and in real life. In the past you could agree to disagree, but not anymore it seems.
I agree to disagree a lot, but it may not be obvious. I just stop replying. I suspect I'm not the only one. I guess I could reply and say "agree to disagree" but it sort of feels like an empty gesture. Plus, back in my day, sending that to a Usenet group or mailing list: that's a paddlin'.
> In the past you could agree to disagree, but not anymore it seems.
On the other hand (or in the same vein?), nowadays it seems like people pick-and-choose their "facts" far more liberally than ever. So many choose to believe something and it becomes their truth, through ever increasing echo chambers and whathaveyou. Or maybe they're just more vocal about it, I don't know. It's just a trend I've noticed.
On the other hand (or in the same vein?), nowadays it seems like people pick-and-choose their "facts" far more liberally than ever. So many choose to believe something and it becomes their truth, through ever increasing echo chambers and whathaveyou. Or maybe they're just more vocal about it, I don't know. It's just a trend I've noticed.
My wife grew up in North Dakota where the brutal winters make life miserable for many people. I once asked what the benefit to living there might be and she repeated the oft-given reason the locals usually say - "It keeps the riff-raff out".
One of the reasons HN has a really good signal/noise ratio is that its simple design and lack of 'flashiness' does not attract the usual Internet crowd. Only people who really care about technology and the details of how it all works stick around here for very long. Those who want cat videos and meme discussions quickly move on.
One of the reasons HN has a really good signal/noise ratio is that its simple design and lack of 'flashiness' does not attract the usual Internet crowd. Only people who really care about technology and the details of how it all works stick around here for very long. Those who want cat videos and meme discussions quickly move on.
HN doesn’t really give you the dopamine hit of a well-placed tweet or Reddit comment (though I’ve never submitted through to the front page so maybe that does).
Some older forums feel similar but they’ve often fallen to spammers who automate attacks against phpbb
Some older forums feel similar but they’ve often fallen to spammers who automate attacks against phpbb
I grew up in North Dakota, and yeah, everyone said that but it was only because we couldn't think of any other logical reason to live there. (I grew up in the western part of the state during the 1970s and 1980s, when the economy was terrible.)
This is usually the meaning behind places that are expensive, or have similar barriers to entry - but how does cold tolerance correlate with riff-raff-iness?
I would assume it would correlate higher with having few choices, or stubbornly refusing to move..
I would assume it would correlate higher with having few choices, or stubbornly refusing to move..
I was going to write about how I would prefer to have HN a bit more user friendly / clear in UX, but you know what, you're kind of right. HN's UX takes a certain commitment which may contribute to people being more invested in the site.
another great point. HN isn't even responsive. it's designed for older times, and i love it. (i also love that i can browse HN on lynx or w3m; definitely can't do that with reddit.com, you can, sort of, with old.reddit.com, and you can with i.reddit.com)
"What I like most, though, is that the news doesn’t make the front page based on your interests, but instead the interests of others."
When internet websites started getting "smart" and feeding "my interests", I stopped using internet websites. Hacker News and Wikipedia are... the _only_ sites I use with regularity.
When internet websites started getting "smart" and feeding "my interests", I stopped using internet websites. Hacker News and Wikipedia are... the _only_ sites I use with regularity.
On one hand I agree, but on the other this rule interestingly isn't universal. I'm happy that Spotify caters to my taste in music, for example, rather than just surfacing "top hits", even if I can quibble that I'd like a control to let it venture a bit further afield at times. It's probably my favorite recommendation algorithm, come to think of it.
Though if there was something like a Reddit of music where I could drop in on discussions around a general genre (or tag collection, to use the Pandora model?), that'd be pretty cool and would probably beat Spotify's algorithm for diversity (though yes, there are subreddits already for plenty of genres - maybe I should see how worthwhile they are).
Though if there was something like a Reddit of music where I could drop in on discussions around a general genre (or tag collection, to use the Pandora model?), that'd be pretty cool and would probably beat Spotify's algorithm for diversity (though yes, there are subreddits already for plenty of genres - maybe I should see how worthwhile they are).
In fact, when I first opened HN, I couldn't read the comments very well. Because the font is too small, the layout is dense, and there are no pictures. But when I started reading the comments carefully, I was really surprised by so many people being active on it and so insightful most of the comments are.
Now I'm actually getting used to reading these text-only pages.
Now I'm actually getting used to reading these text-only pages.
I think HN has found its perfect niche and business model, and has the level of simplicity required to never get old.
Even if it has a dark « false productivity » side, i think its purpose goes towards progress of mankind. PG, YC and its administrators take way less from it than they create.
A true inspiration for any project.
And there are even settings to limit your time on the website and avoid unproductive rabbit holes.
« Simplicity makes me happy. » Alicia Keys
(For a lack of a better quote without being cheesy)
And there are even settings to limit your time on the website and avoid unproductive rabbit holes.
« Simplicity makes me happy. » Alicia Keys
(For a lack of a better quote without being cheesy)
There aren't even thumbnails of images present in articles, which nowadays are flooded with irrelevant stock pictures that mislead users into think the picture is really related to the event.
No pictures means you can't just let your lizard brain take over, you have to read titles, I think I skip over many interesting articles on news sites because flashy images trick my brain.
So what makes Haker News great is a lot of "features" that it doesn't have. How ironic that others spend so much resources adding features that are ultimately detrimental.
But I guess it's a matter of who the audience is. If you want to appeal to the masses, some of these "features" probably do help.
But I guess it's a matter of who the audience is. If you want to appeal to the masses, some of these "features" probably do help.
Theres a "filtering for higher abstractions" argument to be made here, which can be applied to the whole internet. Usenet was great, but casual video chat (tiktok) obviously grabs more people.
I have a suspicion many of the people who really enjoy HN, problably dislike much video and audio content; at least consuming less of it proportional to the general population. I read faster than anyone talks and tfind text more efficient; I expect others share that. And also that there are other reasons people prefer text.
I have a suspicion many of the people who really enjoy HN, problably dislike much video and audio content; at least consuming less of it proportional to the general population. I read faster than anyone talks and tfind text more efficient; I expect others share that. And also that there are other reasons people prefer text.
HN being text only is the number one reason (imo). I think the shift of internet content going from text->images->video has pulled the internet away from it's original purpose, communicating text and the written word. And HN still has that original essence.
That and the community ofc
That and the community ofc
HackerNews susceptible to flattery, as evidenced by this submission!
That said, I agree whole-heartedly. HN is the start and end to most of my days as well.
That said, I agree whole-heartedly. HN is the start and end to most of my days as well.
It's the better reddit /r/popular to me.
People here are less mentally mainstreamed, homogenized and lobotomized.
And since this page doesn't have to fulfil any user interaction metrics it can simply stay the way it is (almost perfect) without having to support new media, getting redesigned and filled full of tracking JS, A/B testing JS and other trash.
People here are less mentally mainstreamed, homogenized and lobotomized.
And since this page doesn't have to fulfil any user interaction metrics it can simply stay the way it is (almost perfect) without having to support new media, getting redesigned and filled full of tracking JS, A/B testing JS and other trash.
Less mainstream, sure.
Less homogenized? It's hard for me to believe you mean that, but I'll suggest instead that it's homogenized more closely around your interests, so that you don't notice the homogeneity.
Less lobotomized? So long as you skip threads about crypto, Tesla, SpaceX... just anything even tangentially related to Musk, then sure, less lobotomized.
Less homogenized? It's hard for me to believe you mean that, but I'll suggest instead that it's homogenized more closely around your interests, so that you don't notice the homogeneity.
Less lobotomized? So long as you skip threads about crypto, Tesla, SpaceX... just anything even tangentially related to Musk, then sure, less lobotomized.
I love Hacker News, the community here even being known to be harsh sometimes in opinions but I appreciate the strong opinions even if I disagree with them. It's an amazing community and I relate to it a lot. I check it everyday and mostly have a ton of interesting advice/news to share with family and friends.
Thank you HN!
Thank you HN!
Like all things internet, if its history isn't being curated and cataloged, yesterday links eventually break and old content is lost. This is the only weakness in an otherwise solid technical and professional atmosphere.
The things that make HN so good are the clean no nonsense design. The extremley good moderation and the level of knowledge and expertise of the posters, especially in relation to technology.
Gotta thank @dang et. al. for keeping the quality of Hacker News (both submissions and discussion) so incredibly high.
Browsing HN feels like what browsing Reddit felt like back in 2012. There are a lot of great viewpoints on here from all sorts of people (though it is a bit of a monoculture being that most of us are in the tech industry). Meanwhile, outside of some niche subreddits, an increasing number of submissions onto Reddit make you wonder "is this real?", and top-voted comments are often called out for misinformation by much less popular replies.
A lot of this, I think, comes back to motivations. Hacker News doesn't need to chase growth above everything. It's run by a super successful VC as a kind-of side project that also doubles as a funnel for applicants into YC. From what I understand, Reddit makes almost all their money from ads, so they absolutely need to grow the site and increase per-user engagement, which makes them take several pages from Facebook/Twitter/Instagram's playbook, and none of those pages have "quality text content" as a leading KPI.
Browsing HN feels like what browsing Reddit felt like back in 2012. There are a lot of great viewpoints on here from all sorts of people (though it is a bit of a monoculture being that most of us are in the tech industry). Meanwhile, outside of some niche subreddits, an increasing number of submissions onto Reddit make you wonder "is this real?", and top-voted comments are often called out for misinformation by much less popular replies.
A lot of this, I think, comes back to motivations. Hacker News doesn't need to chase growth above everything. It's run by a super successful VC as a kind-of side project that also doubles as a funnel for applicants into YC. From what I understand, Reddit makes almost all their money from ads, so they absolutely need to grow the site and increase per-user engagement, which makes them take several pages from Facebook/Twitter/Instagram's playbook, and none of those pages have "quality text content" as a leading KPI.
You might like https://hckrnews.com/
Hacker News is in absolutely no way a “masterpiece”; it’s a site, one of many, that aggregates articles, sorted by popularity. Because it’s run by the largest startup accelerator in the world, it attracts people other sites don’t.
The only special thing about HN is its association with YC. That’s it.
But people have this inherent need to worship just about anything, so we get self congratulatory articles like this one.
Maybe the fact that this article does well here will make a few of you see through the bull crap? Probably not, but a girl can dream…
The only special thing about HN is its association with YC. That’s it.
But people have this inherent need to worship just about anything, so we get self congratulatory articles like this one.
Maybe the fact that this article does well here will make a few of you see through the bull crap? Probably not, but a girl can dream…
HN's active but not obtrusive moderation is pretty special. dang's gift for patient explanations is quite special. Not unique, but worth note because its so rare and worth emulation.
No, dang is objectively terrible at moderation. Just look at his comments history to understand how bad he is at dealing with issues. Zero effort to mediate or perspective take; dang’s first impression is the only view that matters, regardless of how wrong or misinformed.
Dang worship is just one example of how HN is no better than any other social media, and the fact that he still has a job is an indication it may be meaningfully worse.
Dang worship is just one example of how HN is no better than any other social media, and the fact that he still has a job is an indication it may be meaningfully worse.
I would say he is open to "the wrong and misinformed" in the hope that they become less misinformed, at least.
How are you so certain you've the correct position on anything, if you can't consider other points of view? How can you understand others actions if you will not listen to their attempts to explain their motivations?
How are you so certain you've the correct position on anything, if you can't consider other points of view? How can you understand others actions if you will not listen to their attempts to explain their motivations?
? How is dang so certain he (has) the correct position on anything, if he can't consider other points of view? How can he understand others actions if he will not listen to their attempts to explain their motivations?
He doesn't do any of that, he just states some basic, "Stop doing <value judgement about user's behavior>." No discussion, no insight gathering, nothing.
He's a garbage moderator. You can literally observe it in his comment history [0]. His most recent comment (at time of writing)[1] exemplifies this perfectly:
> You don't have to agree with anyone's views but this style of argument is deathly to the curious conversation we want here.
No, it is not. This is simply wrong, and "this style" is dismissive and rude. But that's not up for debate, as dang has decreed it so. The only reason he writes anything at all here is to explain why the person is, to him, wrong. Zero attempt whatsoever to understand an alternative perspective.
Awful, terrible moderation skills.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32640951
He doesn't do any of that, he just states some basic, "Stop doing <value judgement about user's behavior>." No discussion, no insight gathering, nothing.
He's a garbage moderator. You can literally observe it in his comment history [0]. His most recent comment (at time of writing)[1] exemplifies this perfectly:
> You don't have to agree with anyone's views but this style of argument is deathly to the curious conversation we want here.
No, it is not. This is simply wrong, and "this style" is dismissive and rude. But that's not up for debate, as dang has decreed it so. The only reason he writes anything at all here is to explain why the person is, to him, wrong. Zero attempt whatsoever to understand an alternative perspective.
Awful, terrible moderation skills.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32640951
> he just states some basic, "Stop doing <value judgement about user's behavior>."
Very often it's "stop breaking the guideline", or "stop participating in flamewars" - so not much to go on. Often the next comment is "which guideline did I break" or "What do you mean by flamewar/why is this a flamewar?" - which goes unanswered.
Other times, users will participate in blatant trolling, or obvious (non subjective) rule breaking and get far more detail/response.
It feels like dang/mods aren't exactly sure of what the moderation rules should be, so simply don't answer difficult questions..
That said, what is the benchmark for moderation? Reddit? The internet standard is so low, HN is great in comparison.
Very often it's "stop breaking the guideline", or "stop participating in flamewars" - so not much to go on. Often the next comment is "which guideline did I break" or "What do you mean by flamewar/why is this a flamewar?" - which goes unanswered.
Other times, users will participate in blatant trolling, or obvious (non subjective) rule breaking and get far more detail/response.
It feels like dang/mods aren't exactly sure of what the moderation rules should be, so simply don't answer difficult questions..
That said, what is the benchmark for moderation? Reddit? The internet standard is so low, HN is great in comparison.
Part of the point of having a moderator is to give the community a mechanism to make quick determinations and to keep tendentious meta-debates out of the main threads (meta-stories like this being an obvious exception). If you want to debate the moderators, mail [email protected].
> keep tendentious meta-debates out of the main threads
How is removing "tendentious meta-debates" aka "controversial topics not directly related to the main thread" compatible with "On-topic: Anything .. interesting ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" or even "seasoned talking points aren't on topic here"?
(though it does match "Avoid unrelated controversies".. Guess those are never interesting to good hackers?)
> If you want to debate the moderators
I think the issue is they don't want to debate the mods. Or specifically, for the mods to debate them. I feel there's a difference moderating the meta-aspects of a debate (style, relevance etc), and participating in a debate.
How is removing "tendentious meta-debates" aka "controversial topics not directly related to the main thread" compatible with "On-topic: Anything .. interesting ... anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" or even "seasoned talking points aren't on topic here"?
(though it does match "Avoid unrelated controversies".. Guess those are never interesting to good hackers?)
> If you want to debate the moderators
I think the issue is they don't want to debate the mods. Or specifically, for the mods to debate them. I feel there's a difference moderating the meta-aspects of a debate (style, relevance etc), and participating in a debate.
You're basically lawyering the site guidelines against the person who wrote and maintains the site guidelines (not me; I'm just paraphrasing them). That's neither interesting or productive. Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail, why tendentious meta-debates are toxic to the project HN is trying to run. You are, of course, welcome not to participate in that project! But trying to convince me that the project is something other than what Dan says it is seems silly. Not to put too fine a point on it: I don't care what you think the project is, and I deeply care what Dan thinks it is.
By "lawyering" you mean pointing out the contradictions? Sure. You say thats not interesting, but clearly I think it is.
If by project you mean whatever dang says it is, then sure it's what dang says it is. If you mean a community forum, no, dang just had an opinion. The fact that you agree with that opinion and so don't care to be convinced otherwise don't change that it's just an opinion.
> Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail
There may have been an explanation, but no discussion - but would you just argue that this wouldn't be interesting or productive? You're satisfied so why would you care about inconsistent modding?
If by project you mean whatever dang says it is, then sure it's what dang says it is. If you mean a community forum, no, dang just had an opinion. The fact that you agree with that opinion and so don't care to be convinced otherwise don't change that it's just an opinion.
> Dan has explained over and over again, in great detail
There may have been an explanation, but no discussion - but would you just argue that this wouldn't be interesting or productive? You're satisfied so why would you care about inconsistent modding?
Nothing about a moderator necessitates quickness, and what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else. In fact, quickness is a negative trait of a moderator, when their decisions are as impactful as limiting speech.
And nobody said anything about debating anyone, I'm wholly uninterested in dang's perspective at this point, he's made his lack of ability in this area perfectly clear.
It's also perfectly clear how little is in his toolbox to enforce his decisions however, so I suppose it's mostly a wash.
And nobody said anything about debating anyone, I'm wholly uninterested in dang's perspective at this point, he's made his lack of ability in this area perfectly clear.
It's also perfectly clear how little is in his toolbox to enforce his decisions however, so I suppose it's mostly a wash.
I disagree with basically everything you said here. But, much more importantly: if you're wholly uninterested in Dan's perspective on things, this place is probably not a great hang for you.
It’s been a fine “hang” for me for 13 years, it’ll be fine for another 13, most likely.
Also I think it's the literal definition of hubris to disagree with, "what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else" but I'm guessing you don't really care about hypocritical shit like that.
Also I think it's the literal definition of hubris to disagree with, "what may be tendentious to you is not to someone else" but I'm guessing you don't really care about hypocritical shit like that.
13 years, you say? That's not what your profile says — did you feel some need to create a new identity?
I think anything I say to you is going to generate a snarky, dismissive response, and so am opting to keep things simple.
The idea that you have to share the same politics or perspectives as the mod is the problem, and promotes walled gardens and groupthink. The exact phenomenon of mods killing anything they disagree with is what killed reddit.
You do not have to share the same politics, and, moreover, you don't even know what his politics are. How I know that is, I don't even know what his politics are, and I've talked to him a bunch and am a little unhealthily curious about them.
I can't speak to what you know, but I can speak to what sometimes reveals itself.
If it's the case that you don't have to share the same politics, then please explain why:
> if you're wholly uninterested in Dan's perspective on things, this place is probably not a great hang for you
If it's the case that you don't have to share the same politics, then please explain why:
> if you're wholly uninterested in Dan's perspective on things, this place is probably not a great hang for you
I agree with this, although my memory is probably selective (as it usually is for authorities).
But "the fact that he still has a job" is too far - HN should rethink it's moderation for the greater good, but HN will hardly die otherwise.
But "the fact that he still has a job" is too far - HN should rethink it's moderation for the greater good, but HN will hardly die otherwise.
The only other forum most people know is reddit, which is mostly a braindead wasteland. In contrast to that, Hacker News is a masterpiece.
That wasn't always the case, and there are still a few good sub-reddits to prove this.
In the case of Reddit, it was purposefully trashed by its new owners who decided that anything less than a east-coast-lib groupthink would prevent growth, or something - or maybe they are just incompetent. Feels a similar story with Stack-Overflow.
In the case of Reddit, it was purposefully trashed by its new owners who decided that anything less than a east-coast-lib groupthink would prevent growth, or something - or maybe they are just incompetent. Feels a similar story with Stack-Overflow.
reddit is infinitely curate-able. if you remove all the default subs and sub to communities about topics you care about, it is a much better experience (except for large communities; those are trash, but large forums back in the day were also trash)
Unfortunately that’s probably true, despite the facts that
a) Reddit is a gigantic mixed bag of quality, and thinking Reddit is “all bad” is admitting to not understanding how to use it, and
b) being unable to understand that the category isn’t actually “forums” is sad. You can get this level of quality (which is to say, not the real draw of HN in the first place) by directly visiting the sites posted here.
a) Reddit is a gigantic mixed bag of quality, and thinking Reddit is “all bad” is admitting to not understanding how to use it, and
b) being unable to understand that the category isn’t actually “forums” is sad. You can get this level of quality (which is to say, not the real draw of HN in the first place) by directly visiting the sites posted here.
I do enjoy a good forum, but most of the good content I see posted here isn't from a forum, and my favorite forum I'm most interested in (lambda the ultimate) is almost dead. Together, that means HN ends up having the most interesting content and discussion for the topics I care about that updates frequently.
a) Any community I ever found on reddit is, over time, infested by mediocrity, non relevant content and (leftist political & identity) hugboxing. Reddit attracts averageness and lowest common denominator content and that is just terribly boring and off putting. I really don't know how to put this in a way that doesn't appear arrogant. In the end the best summary I can offer is: Reddit is a garbage dump. You can find diamonds in a garbage dump, but don't expect it to happen often.
b) Hacker News and subreddits are variants of forum though? I understand your idea of being able to get this yourself on the linked pages, but I have to say I really enjoy the preselection hacker news users do for me.
b) Hacker News and subreddits are variants of forum though? I understand your idea of being able to get this yourself on the linked pages, but I have to say I really enjoy the preselection hacker news users do for me.
On (a): Reddit can be extremely useful as a search engine. Adding site:reddit.com to a search for, say, a product or troubleshooting, will generally give you better results than the Google default. It's also pretty good for search for local issues (e.g., "Where can I find X in Y?") and for quick answers that are usually buried under a whole blog post otherwise for SEO purposes (e.g., "How do I unlock secret X in game Y?"). The latter Google default search will give you blog posts that get to the answer after several paragraphs of "Game Y is a game full of secrets, which is why gamers really love it" and "Secret X is really a game-breaking weapon that will make your character extremely strong for the last half of the game."
In short, Reddit serves a purpose that Google used to serve.
In short, Reddit serves a purpose that Google used to serve.
> In short, Reddit serves a purpose that Google used to serve.
That's true actually. I usually use google + reddit to find "real people (TM)" testimonials for medical treatments that can't be found otherwise.
That's true actually. I usually use google + reddit to find "real people (TM)" testimonials for medical treatments that can't be found otherwise.
a) I cannot emphasize this enough, but... So. Does. HN. It's actually a lot worse here, because it's faux intellectualism.
The "hugboxing" here is so much more egregious, because people think they're above it.
b) The link aggregation and the conversations are two distinct features, and only some tiny percentage of good content actually makes its way here, and even when it does, HN is extremely temporal, so if you "miss" it, you're SOL.
But I really, truly, emphatically, want to make something clear: HN users are not in any way immune to any of the things you seem to take issue with over on Reddit. Your problem isn't with HN or Reddit, your problem is with people, as what you've listed is true and inherent in any collection of humans interacting with one another (specific ideology notwithstanding).
b) The link aggregation and the conversations are two distinct features, and only some tiny percentage of good content actually makes its way here, and even when it does, HN is extremely temporal, so if you "miss" it, you're SOL.
But I really, truly, emphatically, want to make something clear: HN users are not in any way immune to any of the things you seem to take issue with over on Reddit. Your problem isn't with HN or Reddit, your problem is with people, as what you've listed is true and inherent in any collection of humans interacting with one another (specific ideology notwithstanding).
[deleted]
For example I’m a long term Cryptocurrency user/investor/advocate and Hacker News is one of the few places I read negative discussions on Cryptocurrency that are well reasoned and anchored in reality.
Most discussion I see on other sites is either negative out of bitterness (and it shows) or positive for no reason other than misplaced hope.
There are other topics too I find insightful and the comments section often valuable even though it’s a topic that makes me feel not so good. For example topics regarding getting old, ageism, what we spend out time on in life.
Often confronting but helpful to see and read, sometimes causing me to change trajectory.
Again I rarely find a similar level of confrontation on websites to my wants and desires outside Hacker News.
I have a healthy group of friends that will confront me with similar levels of unease, never letting me get to comfortable.
Just wish more websites offered a similar experience.
Twitter and Reddit I find are time sinks with little return other than a place to burn time.