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

Show HN: Analyzing top HN posts with language models

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Show HN: Analyzing top HN posts with language models

#31

Post by rmbyrro »

wpietri wrote: post #28
rmbyrro wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you advocate for the disclaimer only because 1) the sample uses their product or 2) just because they sell a product correlated to the topic? I see a lot of articles that fall into #2 being published here without a disclaimer. And I think a disclaimer isn't necessary for #2. Even for #1 I wouldn't bother, but I understand the expectation. Many advocate a lot against ads, targeting, etc. If we also advocate against…

I don't understand why you think asking that conflicts of interests being clearly disclosed is me wanting to "advocate against promotional content". Do you believe content marketing only works if it's quietly manipulative? That seems like a pretty grim take.

True, a bad way of expressing it.

Correcting myself, what I mean is adding a disclaimer may make people look at it with suspicion. Or even walk away not giving a fair chance to get to know it.

Whether I received a note from a stranger or from the company employee, it shouldn't change how I judge and evaluate it.

Yet, I think the latter introduces bias and undercuts what could be an honest marketing effort.

This is all speculative. No data-driven backing.

Re: Show HN: Analyzing top HN posts with language models

#32

Post by rmbyrro »

notatoad wrote: post #20
rmbyrro wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you advocate for the disclaimer only because 1) the sample uses their product or 2) just because they sell a product correlated to the topic? I see a lot of articles that fall into #2 being published here without a disclaimer. And I think a disclaimer isn't necessary for #2. Even for #1 I wouldn't bother, but I understand the expectation. Many advocate a lot against ads, targeting, etc. If we also advocate against…

most content marketing goes to a post on the company's own website, which is a sort of inherent disclosure. i don't think asking people to disclose that they work for the company whose product they're promoting is "advocating against promotional content".

That's true, it's not advocating against. Bad way of expressing.

But I do think it may undercut the power of content marketing by introducing an unconscious and unjustified negative bias.

If a stranger shares it on HN, should I judge it in a different way? What is the true value of highlighting that the author works for the company?

Re: Show HN: Analyzing top HN posts with language models

#33

Post by ultra_nick »

tra3 wrote: post #26
natch wrote: post #25

There's too much fixation with "top" in our industry. Top voted tends to mostly be a function of early posting. Later posts don't get votes because they simply were not seen. There seems to be a misreading on a mass scale of what "top" really indicates though; people think it means "quality" when it does not. Study after study, website after website, policy after policy, our online world is built on this fundamental…

Is there a name for this phenomenon so I can google further? Intuitively makes sense, because I’ve seen this before.

Preferential Attachment,Power law distribution, and the 80-20 rule are all the same.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_attachment

Re: Show HN: Analyzing top HN posts with language models

#34

Post by woojoo666 »

rmbyrro wrote: post #32
notatoad wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

most content marketing goes to a post on the company's own website, which is a sort of inherent disclosure. i don't think asking people to disclose that they work for the company whose product they're promoting is "advocating against promotional content".

That's true, it's not advocating against. Bad way of expressing. But I do think it may undercut the power of content marketing by introducing an unconscious and unjustified negative bias. If a stranger shares it on HN, should I judge it in a different way? What is the true value of highlighting that the author works for the company?

Do you have a better way of distinguishing between (1) somebody sharing a product because they genuinely think it is good (2) somebody sharing a product because they have a profit motive, despite the product being sh*t.

Proper disclosure is a means to expose bias and external motive. It's not perfect but it's arguably the best method we have right now. There's a reason it's written into law [1]

[1]: https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-...

Re: Show HN: Analyzing top HN posts with language models

#38

Post by mateo1 »

tra3 wrote: post #26
natch wrote: post #25

There's too much fixation with "top" in our industry. Top voted tends to mostly be a function of early posting. Later posts don't get votes because they simply were not seen. There seems to be a misreading on a mass scale of what "top" really indicates though; people think it means "quality" when it does not. Study after study, website after website, policy after policy, our online world is built on this fundamental…

Is there a name for this phenomenon so I can google further? Intuitively makes sense, because I’ve seen this before.

"Already covered"

Re: Show HN: Analyzing top HN posts with language models

#39

Post by rmbyrro »

woojoo666 wrote: post #34
rmbyrro wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, it's not advocating against. Bad way of expressing. But I do think it may undercut the power of content marketing by introducing an unconscious and unjustified negative bias. If a stranger shares it on HN, should I judge it in a different way? What is the true value of highlighting that the author works for the company?

Do you have a better way of distinguishing between (1) somebody sharing a product because they genuinely think it is good (2) somebody sharing a product because they have a profit motive, despite the product being sh*t. Proper disclosure is a means to expose bias and external motive. It's not perfect but it's arguably the best method we have right now. There's a reason it's written into law [1] [1]: https://www.ftc.g…

I think the link you shared is about a potentially separate issue.

First, it's advertising in the form of paid sponsorship. Second, people have reasons to trust what a social influencer says.

I'm doing neither if I have a business or work in a business and I share here an article that I wrote that happens to promote this business.

I'm not paying a stranger to talk about the business, and you don't have any reason to trust what I say without the usual judgement you'd employ towards a stranger.

Re: Show HN: Analyzing top HN posts with language models

#40

Post by woojoo666 »

rmbyrro wrote: post #39
woojoo666 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a better way of distinguishing between (1) somebody sharing a product because they genuinely think it is good (2) somebody sharing a product because they have a profit motive, despite the product being sh*t. Proper disclosure is a means to expose bias and external motive. It's not perfect but it's arguably the best method we have right now. There's a reason it's written into law [1] [1]: https://www.ftc.g…

I think the link you shared is about a potentially separate issue. First, it's advertising in the form of paid sponsorship. Second, people have reasons to trust what a social influencer says. I'm doing neither if I have a business or work in a business and I share here an article that I wrote that happens to promote this business. I'm not paying a stranger to talk about the business, and you don't have any reason to…

There is still some trust I have with a stranger that posts on hackernews. Perhaps misplaced, but it's there nonetheless. I trust that if they took the time to post about a product, that they genuinely believe in it. If I later learn that they are just a marketer for that product, that trust will get diminished.

To give another example, why do we trust product reviews by strangers on Amazon? They could all be just marketers in disguise after all. But Amazon actually puts effort into removing fake reviews. Why? Because honesty matters. And when you have a bias or profit motive, it's important to disclose that part too, so people can judge your review appropriately. Paid reviewers exist, but they are usually disclosed.

Post reply on HN