Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Paul Graham

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 162 posts

Re: To Paul Graham

#121

Post by techiferous »

chaosmachine wrote: post #105
pg wrote: post #64

Thanks very much. I don't think it's really HN's features or lack of them is the attraction for most users though, but the quality of the submissions and comments. So thank you guys. Ironically I've been thinking of adding some variant of following as a way to deal with the increasing volume of comments. I just haven't had time to yet. I did recently (about 3 weeks ago) tweak the algorithm for ranking comments, and t…

Now it also considers among other things the average comment score of the submitter. Does this create a rich-get-richer type scenario, where users with high averages get more exposure, thus leading to higher averages?

"rich-get-richer"

An alternative way to think about it is that it adds more stability to the system, for better or for worse.

Re: To Paul Graham

#122

Post by [deleted] »

gizmo wrote: post #89
pg wrote: post #64

Thanks very much. I don't think it's really HN's features or lack of them is the attraction for most users though, but the quality of the submissions and comments. So thank you guys. Ironically I've been thinking of adding some variant of following as a way to deal with the increasing volume of comments. I just haven't had time to yet. I did recently (about 3 weeks ago) tweak the algorithm for ranking comments, and t…

Since this is a meta-thread anyway: have you considered something like a blacklist? That would give us a way to filter out those users who like to make bad puns or witty one-liners too much, and those users who too often make wildly incorrect claims. This would still serve as a filter, but this wouldn't result in some kind of whitelist where you effectively only really notice the people you know you're going to agree…

[deleted]

Re: To Paul Graham

#123

Post by MisterWebz »

Zancarius wrote: post #107
pg wrote: post #64

Thanks very much. I don't think it's really HN's features or lack of them is the attraction for most users though, but the quality of the submissions and comments. So thank you guys. Ironically I've been thinking of adding some variant of following as a way to deal with the increasing volume of comments. I just haven't had time to yet. I did recently (about 3 weeks ago) tweak the algorithm for ranking comments, and t…

Mr. Graham, I think we all owe you a great deal of thanks for HN, and I certainly think that we may not share this sentiment enough. Thank you, Mr. Graham. Simplicity in design truly is elegance, and I feel that--sometimes--too much flashy Web 2.0-related cruft tends to distract from the content (as the submitter points out). Certainly the Twitters and Facebooks of today and tomorrow have their uses, but I'm not so s…

Oh please, stop the ass kissing already. A simple 'Thank you' would suffice.

Re: To Paul Graham

#124

Post by SandB0x »

sesqu wrote: post #88
pg wrote: post #64

Thanks very much. I don't think it's really HN's features or lack of them is the attraction for most users though, but the quality of the submissions and comments. So thank you guys. Ironically I've been thinking of adding some variant of following as a way to deal with the increasing volume of comments. I just haven't had time to yet. I did recently (about 3 weeks ago) tweak the algorithm for ranking comments, and t…

How about instead of average comment score, you consider average likelihood of quality, treating the score (or its log) as odds? That is, w=avg(score/(1+score)). That way a single popular comment won't dominate.

Or just take the median.

Re: To Paul Graham

#125

Post by pg »

chaosmachine wrote: post #105
pg wrote: post #64

Thanks very much. I don't think it's really HN's features or lack of them is the attraction for most users though, but the quality of the submissions and comments. So thank you guys. Ironically I've been thinking of adding some variant of following as a way to deal with the increasing volume of comments. I just haven't had time to yet. I did recently (about 3 weeks ago) tweak the algorithm for ranking comments, and t…

Now it also considers among other things the average comment score of the submitter. Does this create a rich-get-richer type scenario, where users with high averages get more exposure, thus leading to higher averages?

You can check by looking at the average comment scores on http://news.ycombinator.com/leaders (the second column). They haven't changed much as far as I can tell.

Re: To Paul Graham

#126

Post by pg »

dkersten wrote: post #100
jfager wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote a small greasemonkey script for blacklisting, it definitely helps keep the site useful for me. http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/55745 I also second the suspicions about whitelisting being a desirable thing.

Though an interesting people list might be good - comments by people on the list are highlighted so you can spot them easier, this way you can choose the people whos comments you like to be highlighted. Coupled with a blacklist to hid (or make less obvious) the comments by people who you decide generally don't post interesting or useful comments could make dealing with large numbers of comments much much easier. Thou…

That seems like a good idea.

Re: To Paul Graham

#127

Post by hxa7241 »

j_baker wrote: post #110
chaosmachine wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now it also considers among other things the average comment score of the submitter. Does this create a rich-get-richer type scenario, where users with high averages get more exposure, thus leading to higher averages?

It might. But that's only an issue if the rich don't deserve to get rich.

Hold on, that begs the question -- how do we know who deserves? that is the problem.

The whole thing has a circular dependency: if ranking acts as a filter, then higher rank means more readers, and that in turn means more upvotes and so a higher ranking. It is probably not so much the top being undeserving, but that deserving stuff gets missed.

This seems to be a fundamental weakness in all similar 'ranking' systems, but I am not sure of the full character and implications...

(There is certainly a substantial component of being an automated system of 'social-proof'. And the filtering can never be entirely effective: if you show everyone only the good stuff, the filtering would not get done at all.)

Re: To Paul Graham

#128

Post by caffeine »

MisterWebz wrote: post #123
Zancarius wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mr. Graham, I think we all owe you a great deal of thanks for HN, and I certainly think that we may not share this sentiment enough. Thank you, Mr. Graham. Simplicity in design truly is elegance, and I feel that--sometimes--too much flashy Web 2.0-related cruft tends to distract from the content (as the submitter points out). Certainly the Twitters and Facebooks of today and tomorrow have their uses, but I'm not so s…

Oh please, stop the ass kissing already. A simple 'Thank you' would suffice.

Ha! I chuckled because I assumed he was making good-natured meta-humor about the rising levels of PG appreciation going on...

I guess what I like about HN is the high expectations it allows us to keep.

Re: To Paul Graham

#129

Post by ible »

stanleydrew wrote: post #113
seunosewa wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you hate about it?

I hate apartment search. It's so so painful. Their data model is all wrong. Location is the most important thing about an apartment in my opinion. That should be the primary method by which you search. And they've tried, but you end up searching within these broad "neighborhoods" in the bigger US cities. And a lot of people mischaracterize their apartment's location in order to make it seem nicer or whatever. Why is…

Check out padmapper.com does a nice maps mashup of craigslist plus other sources. May still not work if the data in your city is too poor, but works great for me.

Re: To Paul Graham

#130

Post by presidentender »

hxa7241 wrote: post #127
j_baker wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might. But that's only an issue if the rich don't deserve to get rich.

Hold on, that begs the question -- how do we know who deserves? that is the problem. The whole thing has a circular dependency: if ranking acts as a filter, then higher rank means more readers, and that in turn means more upvotes and so a higher ranking. It is probably not so much the top being undeserving, but that deserving stuff gets missed. This seems to be a fundamental weakness in all similar 'ranking' systems,…

The advantage here is that pg is giving an advantage to high averages, not high point totals. So there's less incentive to be a reddit/digg style poweruser looking for one upvote on thousands of comments, and more incentive to say something truly insightful from time to time.
Post reply on HN