4 ms·

I find the comments most of the time more read worthy than the article.

• ethbro 9y ago
  Try YouTube or Fox News comments. But on good sites, absolutely! I'd consider comment sections more valuable than the news content, which is often an AP repost with a couple more sentences.
• BeetleB 9y ago
  >I find the comments most of the time more read worthy than the article. What news site is this? For general news sites, I've found them to be of very low quality. I can't remember the last time I gained anything from them.
  • travmatt 9y ago
    I'd consider HN to be a news source, I typically check the comments on articles first. I'd say I've found this to be true.
    • BeetleB 9y ago
      Ah, but HN often doesn't link to general news sites - most of them are dedicated to certain disciplines. If you're in the US, as an exercise, look up the news site of your local newspaper, and read the comments there. They're often of higher quality than the larger state/national news sites, and even then they're mostly crap.
    • setr 9y ago
      It's a news aggregator, not a source. In fact, it's only really got two primary functions: allow users to post arbitrary links, and allow users to comment on them. Most news sources however have three primary functions: Identify, Write, and Publish news. Commenting in HN is key to its existence; Commenting in news sources just happens to be a thing available. Saying that comments works in HN is like saying comments work on reddit; it's trivially true, assuming the site is in any way functional/popular. But that doesn't mean comments are useful on NYT; take away comments and there really wouldn't be much lost from its primary goals.