4 ms·

My comment is prompted by the realization that recently (for the past year or so) a lot of general interest NYTimes articles shoot straight up to HN front page.

My comment is prompted by the realization that recently (for the past year or so) a lot of general interest NYTimes articles shoot straight up to HN front page. There are two explanations: either the HN crowd is turning into a general interest one or YC/HN has a deal with NYTimes to help the later increase their memberships. Based on how the (down)votes go, I would give it a fair chance to the HN crowd turning into a "general interest" one.

minimaxir 9y ago
A better argument against is that the NYTimes consistently produces good journalism.
- mnglkhn2 9y ago
  You will notice that I did not comment on the quality of NYTimes' articles. And it was a convenient example as it is an easy one to spot (at this moment there are 2 articles from NYTimes on HN front page). The question stands: should cross promotion deals be disclosed?
  - grzm 9y ago
    Above you posit the behavior you observe is due to a change in HN membership taste or some kind of deal between HN and NYT. I think the former is the easier to support: people often comment on changes on site membership. You appear to be giving more credence to the latter without evidence, which amounts to accusations of shillage. If you've got something firm, by all means, present it. If not, please abide by the guidelines which ask us not to engage in unsubstantiated accusations: generally this is applied with respect to other organizations, but I think HN should be given the benefit of the doubt here as well.
  - dang 9y ago
    Sure, of course. But there aren't any.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> My comment is prompted by the realization that recently (for the past year or so) a lot of general interest NYTimes articles shoot straight up to HN front page. I've noticed that for a lot longer, and for a lot more than just the New York Times. > either the HN crowd is turning into a general interest one The thing about "general interests" is that they are often shared even among members of a community centered around more specific special interests.

minimaxir 9y ago

A better argument against is that the NYTimes consistently produces good journalism.

mnglkhn2 9y ago
You will notice that I did not comment on the quality of NYTimes' articles. And it was a convenient example as it is an easy one to spot (at this moment there are 2 articles from NYTimes on HN front page). The question stands: should cross promotion deals be disclosed?
- grzm 9y ago
  Above you posit the behavior you observe is due to a change in HN membership taste or some kind of deal between HN and NYT. I think the former is the easier to support: people often comment on changes on site membership. You appear to be giving more credence to the latter without evidence, which amounts to accusations of shillage. If you've got something firm, by all means, present it. If not, please abide by the guidelines which ask us not to engage in unsubstantiated accusations: generally this is applied with respect to other organizations, but I think HN should be given the benefit of the doubt here as well.
- dang 9y ago
  Sure, of course. But there aren't any.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> My comment is prompted by the realization that recently (for the past year or so) a lot of general interest NYTimes articles shoot straight up to HN front page. I've noticed that for a lot longer, and for a lot more than just the New York Times. > either the HN crowd is turning into a general interest one The thing about "general interests" is that they are often shared even among members of a community centered around more specific special interests.