If you find yourself writing an informative comment on HN that will likely get buried. Urge yourself to write a blog article instead.
HN: The Good Parts (2016)
41–50 of 52 posts
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#42Many people on HN are wrong, but it's the quality of wrong on HN that is vastly superior to the wrong you'll find anywhere else.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#43Many people on HN are wrong, but it's the quality of wrong on HN that is vastly superior to the wrong you'll find anywhere else.
I'm not so sure about that. On HN it can be harder to spot the bullshit because people can sound very authoritative even when they are completely wrong or clueless. I experienced this a couple of times with topics I happen to know very well.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#44Many people on HN are wrong, but it's the quality of wrong on HN that is vastly superior to the wrong you'll find anywhere else.
Indeed. As a gentleman of intellect I insist upon only the highest quality, artisinally crafted bullshit. No mere pedestrian mind-muffins will satisfy the refined palate of the HN sophisticate.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#45HN is the least worst internet forum
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#46HN has a very interesting “vocal minority” thing going where certain articles will have VERY predictable comments. ShowHN - “this doesn’t work if JavaScript is disabled” or “you should explain this product better I don’t want it” Any hardware device: “I’ve noticed declining quality because the space bar is a very specific type of plastic now” or “I can’t even ssh into this. I miss the days when I could ssh into my sh…
Relative to other sites, the commenting body of HN is small. The frequent commenters represent an even smaller group. Combined with an interface that deliberately draws attention away from who exactly you're reading with desaturated text, and you've got pretty ideal situation for the opinion of one frequent commenter to produce what appears to be a somewhat popular view.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did Slashdot's voting system work?
Never used it but afaik you could vote along different axis. So you could vote "+1 insightful" for instance, so if a comment had a lot of votes, you had a more idea why it was upvoted.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#48If you find yourself writing an informative comment on HN that will likely get buried. Urge yourself to write a blog article instead.
Something I appreciate about HN is having the opportunity to make a case to dozens or perhaps hundreds of my peers, without the burden of having and maintaining an audience. I don't think people recognize my name from one thread to another, and if they do I don't think they have much of a parasocial relationship with me. I don't see any evidence people "follow" my comments, for instance; the people I talk to more fre…
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#49If you find yourself writing an informative comment on HN that will likely get buried. Urge yourself to write a blog article instead.
I've posted some blog type content over the years and don't know any good way to get anybody to read it (or really even a reason why they should). Posting on HN gets way more interaction and views than most people's blogs would
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#50HN is the least worst internet forum