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

Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 155 posts

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#21

Post by genocidicbunny »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #12
eloisius wrote: post #6

I look forward to the quasi-spam slurry of infiniscroll feed crap once growth hackers start trying to game the algorithm to get more traction for their project. I don’t think you can introduce a recommendation algorithm without it having a negative effect on the content it’s supposed to aid discovery of. Pre-recsys, the content is made for human consumption, but once you add the recsys, the AI itself becomes part of…

What exactly does "optimizing for Github recommendations" mean? I'm not writing and debugging 10,000 lines of C just to farm Github stars. It seems crazy to think anyone would change how they work for that. Whereas, people on Youtube/Twitter/Facebook/etc. really do change their videos or writing to spread better.

That will really depend on how the algorithm weighs different signals. For example, lets say that projects that have a high issue resolution rate are promoted more -- that will just spur people to create small easily fixed issues to boost their ranking.

Any metric the algorithm uses will be subject to being gamed in some way.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#22

Post by AlexandrB »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #12
eloisius wrote: post #6

I look forward to the quasi-spam slurry of infiniscroll feed crap once growth hackers start trying to game the algorithm to get more traction for their project. I don’t think you can introduce a recommendation algorithm without it having a negative effect on the content it’s supposed to aid discovery of. Pre-recsys, the content is made for human consumption, but once you add the recsys, the AI itself becomes part of…

What exactly does "optimizing for Github recommendations" mean? I'm not writing and debugging 10,000 lines of C just to farm Github stars. It seems crazy to think anyone would change how they work for that. Whereas, people on Youtube/Twitter/Facebook/etc. really do change their videos or writing to spread better.

Commerce finds a way.

As soon as there's potential for financial benefit, someone will figure out how to optimize repos for the feed's algorithm. Perhaps this will mean clickbaity README.md files or frequent, trivial code changes to make a repo look more "active". We'll see, I guess.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#24

Post by charcircuit »

dmitriid wrote: post #2

Why do developer companies keep thinking they are aocial twitter-facebook-like things? It goes from small things like hiding exact timestamps behind meaningless "2d ago" to this bullshit

Because "2d ago" provides a better user experience even for developers.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#25

Post by AlexandrB »

naoqj wrote: post #8

Can't you just... not look at it? github is not a social website; I see no reason to ever visit the home page.

As soon as there's a recommendation system, there is an incentive to game it. The impact will be felt whether you look at the thing or not.

I don't watch YouTube's "recommended" videos. That doesn't stop creators from changing their videos, titles, and thumbnails to be more in line with what the recommendation algorithm "likes".

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#26

Post by AlexandrB »

charcircuit wrote: post #24
dmitriid wrote: post #2

Why do developer companies keep thinking they are aocial twitter-facebook-like things? It goes from small things like hiding exact timestamps behind meaningless "2d ago" to this bullshit

Because "2d ago" provides a better user experience even for developers.

Depends on what you're doing. If you're just browsing a repo, it's fine. If you're debugging something and need a timestamp for when a change went in, it's abysmal.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#28

Post by charcircuit »

everdrive wrote: post #5

Algorithmic feeds are always hostile to the user. They limit what a user sees, and slowly infantilizes them by teaching them to passively consume rather actively seek information. I've never encountered a situation where an algorithmic feed made things better. At best, they make things more addictive.

>They limit what a user sees

No, a screen has limited real estate. There is only so many things that can be shown to you at once. So on youtube for example there maybe only be room to show 8 videos. Ideally I should find all 8 videos interesting. If I don't, that's a waste of space and a waste of my time. Algorithmic feeds serve to improve the results such that I am more likely to watch a video that is put in one of those 8 spots compared to if I was just shown trending videos or videos from my subscription box. It is not hostile to me because it saves me time in finding something to watch. You are not being turned into a baby just because you no longer have to search for stuff manually. There is a difference between wanting to find something specific and just wanting to find something interesting.

>I've never encountered a situation where an algorithmic feed made things better.

One of the best algorithmic feeds is TikTok. After that YouTube's is pretty good to. I suggest trying one of those sites out to just see how effective they are in finding content that interests you. I have found algorithmic feeds have at least made things net better. There is too much information in the world to have to search through all of it ourselves. These algorithms solve the problem of dealing with this large scale of data.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#29

Post by chockchocschoir »

> as users worried the recommendations were turning GitHub into something distressingly like a social media platform.

Really users? This is news? I'll echo what I've said in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30769570) regarding GitHub being a social platform:

> GitHub has always branded itself as a "social collaboration platform" rather than anything else (well, first "git hosting" but secondly the social stuff).

> Here is a early version of their landing page from 2008 (the year they launched): https://web.archive.org/web/20081111061111/http://github.com...

> Notice the logo says "Social code hosting" and the messaging of the page is mostly around popular repositories, collaborative features and other social elements.

Anyone surprised by a "social code hosting" platform implementing new social features are in for a bleak feature, as the platform still aims (and always have aimed) to be the social place for coders.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#30

Post by chockchocschoir »

da39a3ee wrote: post #18
EsperHugh wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>github is not a social website you may not like it, but Github has always been a social website, and now more than ever, just like LinkedIn.

Nonsense. GitHub is for working with git repositories. It might have some weird social feed stuff tacked on, but I've never used it in 13 years and to say it's not the main point is an understatement. OTOH social interactions is very obviously the main point of LinkedIn?

You might not have used it as such, but GitHub always aimed to be a social platform and launched as such.

Here is their landing page when they first launched: https://web.archive.org/web/20081111061111/http://github.com...

Notice how the entire page is making you believe they are building a social coding platform? That's no accident, "Social code hosting" tagline in the logo included.

Post reply on HN