[deleted]
Would this community prefer to be under the radar?
71–80 of 102 posts
Re: Would this community prefer to be under the radar?
#72there's always the reddit effect. reddit gets popular, gets bought out by corporate swine, becomes a tabloid full of duplicate articles and complete wastes of time. at least this community is still populated by more thinkers than stinkers. well, except for me.
Re: Would this community prefer to be under the radar?
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it comes to so-called "public knowledge," obscurity (and more largely, apathy) is the only kind of security there is. All websites eventually die (or, at least, all that I have observed); you can't "keep a community alive" so much as you can just let it die peacefully, leaving its children (perhaps under the same ownership!) to continue its legacy.
> All websites eventually die (or, at least, all that I have observed); you can't "keep a community alive" All this makes me think that maybe community forum software should be taking reddit's recommended page to the next level and only showing me posts/discussion from people who have similar voting habits to me or even based on some social networking style "proximity". Having all submissions in one pot and giving ev…
While it isn't exactly what you describe, I found this to be rather interesting:
Re: Would this community prefer to be under the radar?
#74I think the influx of new users is good; there are probably people out there with great things to contribute, that don't even know Hacker News exists. But of course the characteristics of the front page posts are going to change. There is a somewhat controversial solution here... just make a sub-section of HN where only users that signed up X days ago or earlier can post and vote. If X = 250 and guys like me get scre…
This definitely fits into the "make it too boring for 14 year olds" category.
Re: Would this community prefer to be under the radar?
#75yes
Re: Would this community prefer to be under the radar?
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone should implement Randall Munroe's proposal, so that repetitive and cliche phrases are automatically "demoted" -- which would mean that they appear on the bottom -- with the penalty getting exponentially worse, so it starts out as a mild chiding at first, then escalates. EDIT: Come to think of it, I knew this crazy guy about 10 years ago. He was so gung-ho about being "truly alive" that he tried his damnedest…
+1, Even-Handed: for your willingness to compare your own suggestion to the antics of a crazy guy. ;)
I taught him how to program in Perl, and when I left he was working as a Perl coder for a public television station. He also got married to a very interesting and quirky woman, so don't count crazy antics out.
Re: Would this community prefer to be under the radar?
#77Yes, because TechCrunch has nothing to do with hacking. But the other posters are definitely right: this is an inevitable problem and it would be nice to have a more organic solution. I've been trying to read and vote on the "new" page more.
> Yes, because TechCrunch has nothing to do with hacking. Techcrunch is read by a huge percentage of all hackers working on tech startups. This site was previous called "Startup News". I think the TC audience is very well suited.
[deleted]
Re: Would this community prefer to be under the radar?
#78It'll grow regardless. And, the kind of people that will actually stick around tend to be the kind of people we want to be here. The rest will wander off...back to digg, over to reddit, whatever. Thanks for asking, though. Now it's pg's job to figure out how to programmatically maintain the high quality of results. I still want one down-vote per week for stories...sometimes a story shows up that makes me feel ill to…
Down voting is too easy to abuse. Reddit was being gamed in this way -- certain users were down-voting everything, which made being a new poster starting out an almost automatic karma penalty of a few points. They've made the down-vote penalty milder because of this.
I suppose, but if you only get one...you'd have to have an awful lot of extra accounts to make a big difference. But, if everyone agrees that a story sucks or doesn't fit the purpose of the site, it ought to go away.
Re: Would this community prefer to be under the radar?
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Down voting is too easy to abuse. Reddit was being gamed in this way -- certain users were down-voting everything, which made being a new poster starting out an almost automatic karma penalty of a few points. They've made the down-vote penalty milder because of this.
I suppose, but if you only get one...you'd have to have an awful lot of extra accounts to make a big difference. But, if everyone agrees that a story sucks or doesn't fit the purpose of the site, it ought to go away.
Just having a small amount of extra accounts can make a big difference if you can down-vote stories at the very beginning. This gives the unmolested stories a big head-start. I think that reddit implemented different behavior for the first hour of a story's life for this reason.
Re: Would this community prefer to be under the radar?
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose, but if you only get one...you'd have to have an awful lot of extra accounts to make a big difference. But, if everyone agrees that a story sucks or doesn't fit the purpose of the site, it ought to go away.
Just having a small amount of extra accounts can make a big difference if you can down-vote stories at the very beginning. This gives the unmolested stories a big head-start. I think that reddit implemented different behavior for the first hour of a story's life for this reason.
How could a small amount of extra accounts with only one down-vote per week make a big difference?