Comment by llm_nerd
5 days ago
HN goes through phases. I remember when patio11 was the star of the hour on here. At another time it was that security guy (can't remember his name).
And for those who think it's just organic with all of the upvotes, HN absolutely does have a +/- comment bias for users, and it does automatically feature certain people and suppress others.
> And for those who think it's just organic with all of the upvotes, HN absolutely does have a bias for authors, and it does automatically feature certain people and suppress others.
Exactly.
There are configurable settings for each account, which might be automatically or manually set—I'm not sure–, that control the initial position of a comment in threads, and how long it stays there. There might be a reward system, where comments from high-karma accounts are prioritized over others, and accounts with "strikes", e.g. direct warnings from moderators, are penalized.
The difference in upvotes that account ultimately receives, and thus the impact on the discussion, is quite stark. The more visible a comment is, i.e. the more at the top it is, the more upvotes it can collect, which in turn makes it stay at the top, and so on.
It's safe to assume that certain accounts, such as those of YC staff, mods, or alumni, or tech celebrities like simonw, are given the highest priority.
I've noticed this on my own account. Before being warned for an IMO bullshit reason, my comments started to appear near the middle, and quickly float down to the bottom, whereas before they would usually be at the top for a few minutes. The quality of what I say hasn't changed, though the account's standing, and certainly the community itself, has.
I don't mind, nor particularly care about an arbitrary number. This is a proprietary platform run by a VC firm. It would be silly to expect that they've cracked the code of online discourse, or that their goal is to keep it balanced. The discussions here are better on average than elsewhere because of the community, although that also has been declining over the years.
I still find it jarring that most people would vote on a comment depending on if they agree with it or not, instead of engaging with it intellectually, which often pushes interesting comments to the bottom. This is an unsolved problem here, as much as it is on other platforms.
There is a saying that if everyone you encounter seems to be unreasonable, maybe it isn't the other people that are being unreasonable.
This isn't to say that social media is fair, or that people vote properly or that any ranking system based on agreement by readers is a good one. However, generally when you are getting negativity communicated to you and you are seeing consistently poor results around actions you take, it is going to be useful to examine the possibility that there is a difference in how you perceive what you are doing vs how others do. In that case spending time trying to figure out ways in which you are being wronged so that you can continue in the same manner is going to be time wasted.
You seem to be assuming that everything is organic and above board on here. That it's all just user/community stimuli, and if someone flies high well clearly it's great content, from which we can infer the reverse as well.
We don't have the source for HN, nor do we have the obvious bias metadata that the moderators have put in place, but simply paying attention betrays that manipulation mechanisms exist and are heavily utilized.
For instance I clearly have a "bad guy" flag on my account, and frequently see my highly rated comments sorted below literally greyed out comments. Comments older than mine, so it isn't just the normal "well newer comments get a boost", it's just that there is a comment "DEI" in place where some people get a freebie boost and some people get a freebie detriment. It's why often mediocre content and comments by the core group is always floating high.
And let me make it very clear that I do not care. I don't harbour any delusions about some tight community or the like, and HN is not important in my life or my ego. I also know that it's basically a propaganda network for YC (I mean...it's right in the URL), and good for them. It's their site and they can do anything they want with it.
I only commented because some people really think this place is a meritocracy+democracy. That isn't how it works, even if they really want people to think that.
1 reply →
How are you getting persecution complex from what I said? If anything, your comment might be feeding that delusion. :)
My point is that HN definitely has certain weights associated with accounts, which control the karma, visibility, and ultimately discussion of certain topics.
This problem doesn't affect only negativity or downvotes, but upvotes as well. The most upvoted comments are not necessarily of the highest quality, or contribute the most to the discussion. They just happen to be the most visible, and to generally align with the feeling of the hive mind.
I know this because some of my own comments have been at the top, without being anything special, while others I think are, barely get any attention. I certainly examine my thinking whenever it strongly aligns with the hive mind, as this community does not particularly align with my values.
I also tend to seek out comments near the bottom of threads, and have dead comments enabled, precisely to counteract this flawed system. I often find quality opinions there, so I suggest everyone do the same as well.
An essential feature of a healthy and interesting discussion forum is to accomodate different viewpoints. That starts by not burying those that disagree with the majority, or boosting those that agree. AFAIK no online system has gotten this right yet.
1 reply →
the security you mean is probably tptacek (https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tptacek)