3 ms·
98% sounds like a made up stat, so if you grant me the same privilege then let's say HN has 1 million readers. So 2% of that would be 20,000 people qualified to
by sievebrain 10y ago
98% sounds like a made up stat, so if you grant me the same privilege then let's say HN has 1 million readers. So 2% of that would be 20,000 people qualified to judge the article, which is plenty of people.
- argonaut 10y ago1) HN has 300k daily uniques (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9219581 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9219581). Of those readers, nearly all do not comment (we don't have 300k comments, do we?). Of those commentors, only a fraction comment on a given article. 2) Of those commenters, most are not actual researchers, who are, IMO, much, much busier with real work (you know... research) than your average HN commenter.
- sievebrain 10y agoOf course most don't comment, but commenting is not required for a paper to be peer reviewed, only reviewing it is. If someone were to see the paper here, and review it, and find an error, presumably they would contact the author. 300k * 0.02 = 6000 people who may be qualified. How many people are typically asked to peer review a paper? A handful? The odds are still good.
- argonaut 10y agoThe original poster was talking about what would be better for the HN community. The HN community is a discussion forum, not a system of people privately emailing.