HN: The Good Parts (2016)
danluu.com
HN: The Good Parts (2016)
1–10 of 84 posts
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#2I think besides dang and other moderators who keep the site somewhat cleaned up through brute force, the fact that HN discourages flashy features and headache-inducing levels of information density and imagery helps to keep a core audience present, unlike most other platforms that start out simple then quickly pile on feature after feature that make the original audience depart.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#3I expect this post will get few comments out of self-consciousness.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#4Whenever I find a good comment, I clip it.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#5I don’t think the informed technical opinions are nearly as rare as danluu characterizes them to be, to wit: “it’s rare that a thread will have even a single comment that's well-informed”.
I do agree that the farther you get from computer tech, the more frequently you’ll see patently wrong comments (aviation is my eye-roll inducing topic here), but on computer tech topics, I’d say more than 50% of substantive comments have positive correlation with correctness and more than 30% are actively good.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#6"HN comments are horrible."
Proceeds to list pages of awesome comments.
Claims topics he's informed about have mostly wrong comments.
Doesn't give any examples.
HN comments are a conversation/discussion not a contest of who is right/wrong, and it's great to have differing viewpoints as long as those views don't degrade into logical fallacies like ad hominem, ,anecdotal, or others.
There are way less logical fallacies on HN than other sites which is what I love about it.
I think some people just want an echo chamber.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#7I think we've seen this before.
Comments, everywhere are terrible. Heck, this one probably is.
But I like HN more than anywhere else (so far). Maybe rot will set in, and the sun will set on our relationship, but not yet.
I find many comments to be quite correct. Not all, of course, but many.
The ones that I like, are the ones that make me think "orthogonally."
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#8Like anything, great things die with popularity, or at least become just good.
When I started reading HN ten years ago it was a vastly different culture among users. Or maybe I just didn't recognize the underhanded asshole tones.
Either way, HN is still good enough compared to any alternatives I know about. I guess that's just life though.
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#9I sometimes wonder how HN’s audience is shaped by the site’s deliberate inaccessibility to visually impaired people. I suspect it is one part of the site’s tilt toward the younger crowd
Re: HN: The Good Parts (2016)
#10One thing I like about HN, is I can see many comments that I think are totally outrageously wrong and still get into a civil discussion with someone on why they think that way.
This would never go down on Twitter, Reddit etc. I think by virtue of being here, there's at least a semblance of something that unites us.
That being said, I've definitely seen a few situations where "logical fallacies" have been wheeled out to try and autowin an argument. However, this is usually the exception and when things get really bad the moderation is usually on point.