5 ms·

It benefits HN because it makes people willing to comment here. People like ugh who do want to their discussion comments tied to their real name on google for a

It benefits HN because it makes people willing to comment here. People like ugh who do want to their discussion comments tied to their real name on google for all eternity will not participate at HN if they can't use a pseudonym. An HN without ugh and the many pseudonymous commenters like him would be a much poorer HN. Discussion forums are subject to network effects where the value of the forum increases with the square of the number of commenters.

jasonlotito 16y ago
> Discussion forums are subject to network effects where the value of the forum increases with the square of the number of commenters. More commenters doesn't increase value. I think my issue is more that "ugh" isn't anyone. He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion. Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability. Anyways, good discussion. I'm still struggling with the baby/bathwater issue this has arisen, but the wife and child are waiting to be taken out to breakfast, so I must go. =)
- ugh 16y ago
  Oh, I have no problem giving you information about who I am. Yeah, I could just lie, but I guess that’s something you have to live with on the web. I’m a 22 year old social science student from Germany. I have hardly any CS background and no startup background at all. Any more details you want to know?
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  > He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion. Which is precisely the intended effect: it makes you judge the writer by the writing. > Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability. So you need to know who someone is to asses the reliability of what is said? That means you know little about the subject matter, and don't intend to learn more. It's okay most of the time. We can't know everything. But if you are looking at a thread here, that's probably because you're interested in the subject. In that case, not being able to judge a comment by itself would be unacceptable.
  - billswift 16y ago
    Yes. Unless it is pure opinion, or you are willing to spend a lot of time tracking down references for what he wrote, then who the person is has a STRONG bearing on their reliability.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > Which is precisely the intended effect: it makes you judge the writer by the writing. It wouldn't be fair to judge non-native english speakers this way. However, if you are referring to what is being said, then it's not as easy as just reading what they wrote. Indeed, the majority of people out there can't discern reality from fantasy. I did a study on this 15 years ago, where it showed conclusively that presented with factual looking information, even professionals in the various fields were unable to discern fact from fiction on specific topics. ;) Simply put, without anything to verify this comment, you have to judge it purely on what is said. Accountability, credibility, attribute are all critical.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      Your study interests me. Do you have a link?
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        No, I don't. I never did a study. =) You did, however, seek further credibility to backup my comment, which is the entire point. I do, however, remember reading about this at one point, and XKCD did a comic on the topic as well.
        loup-vaillant 16y ago
        > You did, however, seek further credibility to backup my comment Actually, I didn't. I already trusted you about that study. I sought further information, because I was genuinely interested. Nevertheless, I think I see your point.
    - nitrogen 16y ago
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  More commenters doesn't increase value. I disagree. The more commenters that are available, the more likely it is that one commenter will be an expert that can supply a unique perspective. This is especially important at a place like HN where there are lots of smart people who think that being smart means that they're knowledgeable about everything. I think my issue is more that "ugh" isn't anyone. He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion. Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability. The fact that I know your name makes you no less credible in my eyes than ugh. I don't recognize your name. I don't know you. I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time by tracking you down on google and reading your resume. Everything you say is questionable. Really now, what is it about knowing your name that makes your statements any less questionable?
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    >I disagree. The more commenters that are available, the more likely it is that one commenter will be an expert that can supply a unique perspective. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. My fault. More commenters don't necessarily increase value. If that were the case, Digg would be much more valuable then HN. I do think you are correct, in that more commenters means a greater chance of getting an expert answer, but it also increases the chance of getting poor answer. How do you determine which one to take? > Really now, what is it about knowing your name that makes your statements any less questionable? If the choice was between taking the advice of pg and RandomDood123 regarding startups, I'd probably take pg's. I wouldn't disregard RandomDood, but at the same time, pg's comment would gain more weight.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      I do think you are correct, in that more commenters means a greater chance of getting an expert answer, but it also increases the chance of getting poor answer. How do you determine which one to take? Well, if you're reading a thread about the BP oil rig fiasco and some guy is just repeating idiocy he heard on CNN while another guy says "I used to work for a drilling engineering company designing blowout preventers and I can tell you that the following bits are wrong because..." then I'd take the second guy. But YMMV. If the choice was between taking the advice of pg and RandomDood123 regarding startups, I'd probably take pg's. I wouldn't disregard RandomDood, but at the same time, pg's comment would gain more weight. How many people are there that have this degree of notoriety and actually comment on HN? I mean for you, how many are there: a dozen? A half-dozen? These people are already incentivized to write under their real name. So requiring that everyone use their real names would not really change anything regarding the dozen or so widely recognized people whose names "matter". Moreover, discussion at HN tends to range over many topics for which pg (or any famous commenter) really isn't particularly privileged. Finally, let's say that RandomDood123 changed his user id to match his real name, Bob Smith. Would that make you more likely to take his word over pg's? I expect not. So why on Earth should we require RandomDood123 to use his real name?
- nitrogen 16y ago
  Anything he says is questionable, because their[sic] is no accountability. Personally, I don't usually read usernames until after I've read the post, if at all. I'd greatly prefer to evaluate posts based on their relevance, accuracy, and tone. Some posters, like grellas, have a unique style that is instantly recognizable half way through the post, so knowing the username isn't necessary anyway. Other times I've been surprised by the gender, nationality, or occupation of a commenter, and if I'd known that information beforehand, I don't think I would've got as much value from reading their posts.

jasonlotito 16y ago

> Discussion forums are subject to network effects where the value of the forum increases with the square of the number of commenters. More commenters doesn't increase value. I think my issue is more that "ugh" isn't anyone. He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion. Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability. Anyways, good discussion. I'm still struggling with the baby/bathwater issue this has arisen, but the wife and child are waiting to be taken out to breakfast, so I must go. =)

ugh 16y ago
Oh, I have no problem giving you information about who I am. Yeah, I could just lie, but I guess that’s something you have to live with on the web. I’m a 22 year old social science student from Germany. I have hardly any CS background and no startup background at all. Any more details you want to know?
loup-vaillant 16y ago
> He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion. Which is precisely the intended effect: it makes you judge the writer by the writing. > Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability. So you need to know who someone is to asses the reliability of what is said? That means you know little about the subject matter, and don't intend to learn more. It's okay most of the time. We can't know everything. But if you are looking at a thread here, that's probably because you're interested in the subject. In that case, not being able to judge a comment by itself would be unacceptable.
- billswift 16y ago
  Yes. Unless it is pure opinion, or you are willing to spend a lot of time tracking down references for what he wrote, then who the person is has a STRONG bearing on their reliability.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > Which is precisely the intended effect: it makes you judge the writer by the writing. It wouldn't be fair to judge non-native english speakers this way. However, if you are referring to what is being said, then it's not as easy as just reading what they wrote. Indeed, the majority of people out there can't discern reality from fantasy. I did a study on this 15 years ago, where it showed conclusively that presented with factual looking information, even professionals in the various fields were unable to discern fact from fiction on specific topics. ;) Simply put, without anything to verify this comment, you have to judge it purely on what is said. Accountability, credibility, attribute are all critical.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    Your study interests me. Do you have a link?
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      No, I don't. I never did a study. =) You did, however, seek further credibility to backup my comment, which is the entire point. I do, however, remember reading about this at one point, and XKCD did a comic on the topic as well.
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        > You did, however, seek further credibility to backup my comment Actually, I didn't. I already trusted you about that study. I sought further information, because I was genuinely interested. Nevertheless, I think I see your point.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
MichaelSalib 16y ago
More commenters doesn't increase value. I disagree. The more commenters that are available, the more likely it is that one commenter will be an expert that can supply a unique perspective. This is especially important at a place like HN where there are lots of smart people who think that being smart means that they're knowledgeable about everything. I think my issue is more that "ugh" isn't anyone. He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion. Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability. The fact that I know your name makes you no less credible in my eyes than ugh. I don't recognize your name. I don't know you. I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time by tracking you down on google and reading your resume. Everything you say is questionable. Really now, what is it about knowing your name that makes your statements any less questionable?
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  >I disagree. The more commenters that are available, the more likely it is that one commenter will be an expert that can supply a unique perspective. Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. My fault. More commenters don't necessarily increase value. If that were the case, Digg would be much more valuable then HN. I do think you are correct, in that more commenters means a greater chance of getting an expert answer, but it also increases the chance of getting poor answer. How do you determine which one to take? > Really now, what is it about knowing your name that makes your statements any less questionable? If the choice was between taking the advice of pg and RandomDood123 regarding startups, I'd probably take pg's. I wouldn't disregard RandomDood, but at the same time, pg's comment would gain more weight.
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    I do think you are correct, in that more commenters means a greater chance of getting an expert answer, but it also increases the chance of getting poor answer. How do you determine which one to take? Well, if you're reading a thread about the BP oil rig fiasco and some guy is just repeating idiocy he heard on CNN while another guy says "I used to work for a drilling engineering company designing blowout preventers and I can tell you that the following bits are wrong because..." then I'd take the second guy. But YMMV. If the choice was between taking the advice of pg and RandomDood123 regarding startups, I'd probably take pg's. I wouldn't disregard RandomDood, but at the same time, pg's comment would gain more weight. How many people are there that have this degree of notoriety and actually comment on HN? I mean for you, how many are there: a dozen? A half-dozen? These people are already incentivized to write under their real name. So requiring that everyone use their real names would not really change anything regarding the dozen or so widely recognized people whose names "matter". Moreover, discussion at HN tends to range over many topics for which pg (or any famous commenter) really isn't particularly privileged. Finally, let's say that RandomDood123 changed his user id to match his real name, Bob Smith. Would that make you more likely to take his word over pg's? I expect not. So why on Earth should we require RandomDood123 to use his real name?
nitrogen 16y ago
Anything he says is questionable, because their[sic] is no accountability. Personally, I don't usually read usernames until after I've read the post, if at all. I'd greatly prefer to evaluate posts based on their relevance, accuracy, and tone. Some posters, like grellas, have a unique style that is instantly recognizable half way through the post, so knowing the username isn't necessary anyway. Other times I've been surprised by the gender, nationality, or occupation of a commenter, and if I'd known that information beforehand, I don't think I would've got as much value from reading their posts.