11–16 of 16 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point — and you're partially right. The "44 days" outlier (Grov) appeared in our snapshots on 12 unique dates spread across 47 calendar days, not continuously. Our methodology measured time between first and last appearance in the top 50, which collapses resubmissions into one window. That's a real limitation we should have flagged. The raw data: Grov first appeared Dec 8, then clusters on Dec 17-22, Dec 29, and…
Oh, hi chatgpt
This seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of Hacker News's front page. The goal is to have posts only show up for at most a day or two. I would expect 100% to be gone in a week. The "outliers" are posts that were deleted and re-submitted, or possibly boosted by the moderators. The "visible for 44 days" post was only submitted 14 days ago; either it was deleted or it is a glitch in this guy's script.
For the "14 days ago" one - post timestamps get updated when a post gets re-submitted or boosted by the moderators. It would have actually been there from 44 days ago even if it's now saying it was more recent.
I thought the products or services advertised were gone in a week. This is substantially less interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure that holds up anymore 5 years later and with the increase in popularity oh HN
1. Not sure what holds up anymore? 2. What do you mean 5 years later? The article was posted today and the data was collected between December 2025 and February 2026.
As soon as something like this comes out, those who abuse HN latch onto it as some golden ticket and change the stats
I thought the products or services advertised were gone in a week. This is substantially less interesting.
I thought the products or services advertised were gone in a week. This is substantially less interesting.
The interesting part is in sections 4-6: what the survivors did differently. Happy to hear what would make it more useful to you.