3 ms·
> the entire point of interacting with other people is to learn. I find the short/shallow discussions on HN very good for this. They give you just a couple of
by lotharbot 16y ago
> the entire point of interacting with other people is to learn.
I find the short/shallow discussions on HN very good for this. They give you just a couple of shots to either pose an insightful question or provide an insightful response, which encourages high signal content and enforces a "get to the point" mentality. From discussions elsewhere, I've found the majority of learning comes within those first few serious posts; by the time a single person has posted 5-6 times it's often either repetitive or off-topic. In my experience, it's extremely rare for people to still be providing new insight after 5+ rounds of back and forth.
That said, in those rare circumstances, I would like to continue discussions further than HN allows (that's one reason I list my e-mail address in my profile.) I've found that what kills deep discussion on HN is not the lack of deep nesting, but the fast news cycle and lack of a "refresh" mechanic to bring threads with new posts back to the top. If someone responds to a discussion I started 2 days ago, I may never see their response.
- robryan 16y agoI will always look at the threads page to see responses to things I have written even if it is days after. The problem I guess though is even if the response is written, once it drops off the front page no-one else will see it. The fast news cycle is artificial in a way in that a lot of the stuff posted which manage to get up voted is stuff we could do to not have in comparison with some of the bigger, more contentious ideas and stories which deserve further discussion. I don't know if this problem is really solvable without the reddit style sub-reddits, with as big a community as we have here different things will interest different people and each one of these things is taking front page space away from other things quicker.