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

31–40 of 155 posts

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#31

Post by epicide »

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.

> I'm not writing and debugging 10,000 lines of C just to farm Github stars.

And neither would anybody else. That's the problem. (i.e. they'll do something else besides write and debug code to farm stars)

Let's say I determine (or at least believe) that the GitHub algorithm prefers projects with a README with lots of images and emoji, MIT-licensed, and lots of forks.

Obviously, there are already some really great projects out there that have exactly that! The problem is that now I'm incentivized to do those things as well, even if it doesn't always make sense. Sure, I might not create actual spam, but I might choose a license based on partly on that. Or I might inflate my README with an unreadable number of images. After all, my project is pretty important -- if only I could get a few more people interacting with it.

And of course, there's outright abuse. Maybe I'm desperate and build a bot that creates a bunch of forks.

The point is that it doesn't always require the latter scenario when there's also the former. Sure, it's not as bad, but I expect there to be more cases of it, and those cases are harder to determine and retroactively fix.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#32

Post by chockchocschoir »

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

> Why do developer companies keep thinking they are aocial twitter-facebook-like things?

Because that's been their main selling point since day one. Git hosting + social coding platform. I guess because they became the leading code hosting platform in the world, they think that that's because of their social features. What you're seeing today is just a continuation of what they always have been doing.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#33

Post by chockchocschoir »

cassianoleal wrote: post #11
pizza234 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do developer companies keep thinking they are aocial twitter-facebook-like things? Because open source is significantly social in nature; it's not just an available blob of code. I don't necessarily agree with their direction, but the social aspect is certainly a foundational component.

I think the issue is not with it being social in general, but rather with it becoming a similar flavour of social to the likes of Facebook, Twitter, etc. Github has always been a social tool without the need for a newsfeed-type thing.

> Github has always been a social tool without the need for a newsfeed-type thing.

GitHub has always had various activity feeds. Here are two early screenshots from 2008:

> Project and Developer News Feeds - Keep tabs on your favorite projects and the people that work on them.

https://web.archive.org/web/20081113115832/http://github.com...

> Public Developer Profiles - See what other developers are working on and how many commits they've made

https://web.archive.org/web/20081113115936/http://github.com...

From https://web.archive.org/web/20081111061111/http://github.com...

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#34

Post by Shadonototra »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #19
Shadonototra wrote: post #9

No wonder why microsoft bought them, they wanted to kill github

Why would MS want to kill github? It's huge, it serves a vital need, and if MS does manage to strangle it in some way, someone else will fork a similar service and everyone will flock to that, similarly to how everyone left Sourceforge for Github, as I understand it.

that kind of features turn off many developers, including me

reason why i abandoned MSN messenger back in the days was because they started to mimic facebook features, same thing as skype, as people pointed in the github discussion

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#35

Post by chockchocschoir »

da39a3ee wrote: post #15

I've used GitHub intensively for 13 years. I've never looked at the front page or "feed". Why would you? GitHub is for working with git repositories, it's not a social website.

That's great, if you never look at the front page nor the feed, you're not even affected by this change. Leave the "outrage" for people who are affected by it.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#36

Post by naoqj »

chockchocschoir wrote: post #30
da39a3ee wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I bet almost all users of the platform don't consider it a social platform and don't use it as such.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#37

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

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…

I don't think it will be targeted at growth of a project. It will be optimizing for recruiter spam in the feed.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#38

Post by chockchocschoir »

naoqj wrote: post #36
chockchocschoir wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I bet almost all users of the platform don't consider it a social platform and don't use it as such.

Not sure how that matters. If I build a platform explicitly for social coding, but people use it to host images, would you get mad if I continue to optimize for making it better for social coding rather than hosting images?

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#39

Post by epicide »

charcircuit wrote: post #28
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…

> 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.

Right, that's the promise from algorithmic feeds. Sometimes, for some time, it's even the reality!

I think there's some middle ground and nuance to be had here, though. I agree that just because there's "an algorithm" doesn't mean it's bad or a worse user experience. Finding interesting videos is a great example.

However, I think it's fair to also say that video recommendation algorithms have gotten out of hand. We have a lot of content creators who are influenced in how to make their videos by what is popular. After all, if I make a video that is obviously more successful than another one, that means my audience likes it more, right? What did that video do differently that made it so much more successful?

After a long enough time, you end up inadvertently (or intentionally) catering to the whims of the algorithm and not just your audience.

So the issue I have with algorithmic feeds isn't that they are outright a bad idea for users. The problem is that it is not just a feature for users. It starts to shape the content on the platform. This can be used to subtly influence content creators to make better content, but without any idea of what goes into these algorithms, we are left to make wild religious guesses.

And we have to assume that these algorithms serve the (financial) needs of the companies behind them and their sponsors, first and foremost. If not now, then gradually, by the same feedback loop as happens to the content creators.

Re: Complaints mount after GitHub launches new algorithmic feed

#40

Post by namose »

chockchocschoir wrote: post #35
da39a3ee wrote: post #15

I've used GitHub intensively for 13 years. I've never looked at the front page or "feed". Why would you? GitHub is for working with git repositories, it's not a social website.

That's great, if you never look at the front page nor the feed, you're not even affected by this change. Leave the "outrage" for people who are affected by it.

If a sufficient number of gh users do look at the page, you’ll be affected by SEO on the repos you follow if they care about growth.
Post reply on HN