4 ms·

>> I would be suprised if there was a single user who'd left HN because it lacked search. While I agree with you, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. N

by credo 16y ago

>> I would be suprised if there was a single user who'd left HN because it lacked search. While I agree with you, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. No user will leave HN because of search-issues, but a lot of users will be very happy if the site had good search. imo it makes sense to do a trivial thing and make a lot of users happy. So while you're correct in saying that "quality of the submissions and comments" are more important, I see no reason why quality of content should preclude a decent search feature.

aaronbrethorst 16y ago
painkillers and vitamins.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > painkillers and vitamins. I can't make heads or tails of this comment. Could you please explain?
  - derefr 16y ago
    I assume it means that some features are "good for you," while others are opiates; and possibly that this is a bad thing because opiates mask pain, and graphing pain is a crucial part of iterating a design, so the more opiates a design has, the more confounding factors there will be to evolving a good core product. (That's not to say that I agree that on-site search is an opiate, but an argument could be made for it.) EDIT: Oh, wait, I screwed that up completely. It's from here: http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2008/03/does-your-start.html http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2008/03/does-... Apparently, painkillers are the good things. Goes to show how weak analogies won't actually carry your message.
    - jacquesm 16y ago
      I could have sworn that it was posted in a wrong thread, but your explanation makes me doubt.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
    - renderful 16y ago
      I don't have a better word to describe "painkillers", as he is trying to convey the difference between want and need. I want candy, but it's also not good for me. What word conveys that, and isn't harmful in some way?
  - pg 16y ago
    He's referring to the classic problem in a startup of distinguishing between things users want (vitamins) and those they really want (painkillers). It's critical to concentrate on the latter because you have so little margin for error.
pg 16y ago
I see no reason why quality of content should preclude a decent search feature. Because attention is a finite resource. I can only spend attention on minor problems by taking it away from major ones. For example, right now, instead of wasting my time replying to this comment, I should be working on a new project we're launching soon. And I think I will, so forgive me if I drop out of this thread.
- aneth 16y ago
  This is the craigslist logic. Sticky sites can convince themselves they can do no wrong because really they can't. Users would need a really strong reason to leave in droves (friendster). Even spam comments would not lose users quickly unless they were overwhelming because hacker news has a critical mass of people who would have an impossible time moving en masse. Just because people still use craigslist doesn't mean they are doing it right. A decent mapping ui and post reply management would make the site so much better, users happy, and destroy the competition. Instead Craig says basically what you say here. It's the complacent mediocrity of monopoly. No offense. I don't even care about search. But I disagree that you shouldn't add features unless the lack of the feature would lose users. You should add features that make users happy.
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    There's an opportunity cost for every feature added, and it's not just the time lost in implementation. More features = more code, which means more things you have to consider each time you add the next feature. More features = more interface complexity, which means additional things that your users have to consider each time they use the site. More complexity also tends to scare off new users. And more features = more bugs, which is a further drain on productivity in the future. Didn't we just have this thread yesterday when Google introduced a few new features that everyone seems to hate? ("Changing crap", I believe PG called them.) Besides, the argument isn't that you shouldn't add features unless the lack of the feature would lose users. It's that you should be careful which features you add so that you can spend your limited resources on the features that truly delight your users. Big companies usually aren't mediocre because they're complacent (well, perhaps except GM). They become mediocre because their userbase is broad enough that every feature they introduce will piss someone off, so they end up with collections of features such that any given person will love 10% of the product and loathe the remaining 90%.

by credo 16y ago

aaronbrethorst 16y ago

painkillers and vitamins.

jacquesm 16y ago
> painkillers and vitamins. I can't make heads or tails of this comment. Could you please explain?
- derefr 16y ago
  I assume it means that some features are "good for you," while others are opiates; and possibly that this is a bad thing because opiates mask pain, and graphing pain is a crucial part of iterating a design, so the more opiates a design has, the more confounding factors there will be to evolving a good core product. (That's not to say that I agree that on-site search is an opiate, but an argument could be made for it.) EDIT: Oh, wait, I screwed that up completely. It's from here: http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2008/03/does-your-start.html http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2008/03/does-... Apparently, painkillers are the good things. Goes to show how weak analogies won't actually carry your message.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    I could have sworn that it was posted in a wrong thread, but your explanation makes me doubt.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
  - renderful 16y ago
    I don't have a better word to describe "painkillers", as he is trying to convey the difference between want and need. I want candy, but it's also not good for me. What word conveys that, and isn't harmful in some way?
- pg 16y ago
  He's referring to the classic problem in a startup of distinguishing between things users want (vitamins) and those they really want (painkillers). It's critical to concentrate on the latter because you have so little margin for error.

pg 16y ago

I see no reason why quality of content should preclude a decent search feature. Because attention is a finite resource. I can only spend attention on minor problems by taking it away from major ones. For example, right now, instead of wasting my time replying to this comment, I should be working on a new project we're launching soon. And I think I will, so forgive me if I drop out of this thread.

aneth 16y ago
This is the craigslist logic. Sticky sites can convince themselves they can do no wrong because really they can't. Users would need a really strong reason to leave in droves (friendster). Even spam comments would not lose users quickly unless they were overwhelming because hacker news has a critical mass of people who would have an impossible time moving en masse. Just because people still use craigslist doesn't mean they are doing it right. A decent mapping ui and post reply management would make the site so much better, users happy, and destroy the competition. Instead Craig says basically what you say here. It's the complacent mediocrity of monopoly. No offense. I don't even care about search. But I disagree that you shouldn't add features unless the lack of the feature would lose users. You should add features that make users happy.
- nostrademons 16y ago
  There's an opportunity cost for every feature added, and it's not just the time lost in implementation. More features = more code, which means more things you have to consider each time you add the next feature. More features = more interface complexity, which means additional things that your users have to consider each time they use the site. More complexity also tends to scare off new users. And more features = more bugs, which is a further drain on productivity in the future. Didn't we just have this thread yesterday when Google introduced a few new features that everyone seems to hate? ("Changing crap", I believe PG called them.) Besides, the argument isn't that you shouldn't add features unless the lack of the feature would lose users. It's that you should be careful which features you add so that you can spend your limited resources on the features that truly delight your users. Big companies usually aren't mediocre because they're complacent (well, perhaps except GM). They become mediocre because their userbase is broad enough that every feature they introduce will piss someone off, so they end up with collections of features such that any given person will love 10% of the product and loathe the remaining 90%.