31–40 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it works, don't fix it. You'll most likely break it.
Is it working? Post ranking works pretty well, but as far as discussions go I often see insightful responses sent into low-contrast oblivion whilst a glib comment or quip gets accolades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it works, don't fix it. You'll most likely break it.
I think product management across the industry needs to take this more seriously. In my personal experience, YouTube and Windows 11 are some recent examples of usability degradation due to unnecessary changes.
last month, "update to kagi search pricing" ranked 275 with metadata 116 points by exist 8 hours ago with 132 comments its cohorts ranked 270 to 282 (by my screenshoot) are of age 1day+ and with ten or more comments it's weird that post which is new, popular and engaging then sunk to the bottom 275 very fast within hours
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if someone wants to maintain their PR score, they need to actively engage Wouldn't that encourage people to "actively engage" even when they have nothing to say just to keep their score? Goodhart's law comes into mind here. People who want to stay relevant on this site will take your measure as their target. There's no system that can't be gamed if you know the rules. But the more "rock solid" you try to make those…
I think this part of the post answers your question. > Will I ever publicly write about how HN ranks posts if I am Dang (HN moderator)? No, because Pagerank can be manipulated by people despite its reputation. In fact, Pagerank is being exploited for years. Moreover, there are financial incentives for companies to get on the first page in HN.
HN is not the place for new ranking algorithms since it is more than good enough. However, the other social networks could benefit from better sorting. Would it be possible to create a Youtube client that only shows the interesting comments?
But what is interesting? To you and I, perhaps, it is an intellectually well thought out comment.
To YouTube, perhaps, it is what makes people engage emotion.
I don't understand this blog post. The authors says that HN is great for discussions. Then they go on to suggest a different ranking algorithm? Why? To answer the authors question: I would change absolutely nothing about HN. It's great for discussions as is. Edit: I suppose there is some insinuation that HN doesn't really use the original algorithm, and this is the author's attempt to reconstruct what's going on. Is…
The metric in action: https://news.social-protocols.org/
HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35183317
The actual algorithm seems to take into account post rate in some way. I think the assumption is that high early post rate implies controversial topic. If the ratio is too high it seems to get penalized pretty hard. Maybe downvotes and flaggings of posts is a factor too?