3 ms·

> I almost never click through on the source link initially. Too many on HN use this "hack" to avoid reading the article. It can become somewhat humorous when

> I almost never click through on the source link initially. Too many on HN use this "hack" to avoid reading the article. It can become somewhat humorous when an entire comment thread debates points clarified in the first sentence of TFA.

mindcrime 8y ago
That is a fair point.
- waterhouse 8y ago
  I think reading the comments first is a fine strategy if you haven't decided to post a comment of your own. If you do comment, as a good citizen you should probably check the article before submitting your reply.
vfinn 8y ago
Yep, totally agree. One problem is the way many articles are written. People want efficiency, but the relevant information is buried and scattered in the article full of pointless drivel. I'm not generally interested in how this journalist met the interviewee on a sunny day at a certain cafeteria, or that this interviewee wore this or that kind of dress, etc. First and foremost, I'd expect to get a very short summary on the whole thing in order to be able to decide if this article is worth using mental energy at all. But at the moment this kind of possibility of hierarchically expanding the content from high information density to low information density is not available. Edit: bad english
usrusr 8y ago
Everybody's guilty secret? Occasional awareness of not having read the article then adds restraint to active participation in on-topic discussions ("I might make a fool of myself for not having read TFA") that is absent in the inevitable off-topic subthreads, hence more participation there. It's amazing that hn is still so good despite all this! Back to the original topic (no article to not read in an "ask hn", it's safe) : an exception are stories that reach a very high number of posts, that usually means that: a) TFA will be something I should not completely miss, even if it's just another Macbook announcement and b) the comments that might be interesting to me will be buried, I won't bother finding them unless the topic is something I specialize in Therefore, if comment counter at 300 and up, straight to TFA

mindcrime 8y ago

That is a fair point.

waterhouse 8y ago
I think reading the comments first is a fine strategy if you haven't decided to post a comment of your own. If you do comment, as a good citizen you should probably check the article before submitting your reply.

vfinn 8y ago

Yep, totally agree. One problem is the way many articles are written. People want efficiency, but the relevant information is buried and scattered in the article full of pointless drivel. I'm not generally interested in how this journalist met the interviewee on a sunny day at a certain cafeteria, or that this interviewee wore this or that kind of dress, etc. First and foremost, I'd expect to get a very short summary on the whole thing in order to be able to decide if this article is worth using mental energy at all. But at the moment this kind of possibility of hierarchically expanding the content from high information density to low information density is not available. Edit: bad english

usrusr 8y ago

Everybody's guilty secret? Occasional awareness of not having read the article then adds restraint to active participation in on-topic discussions ("I might make a fool of myself for not having read TFA") that is absent in the inevitable off-topic subthreads, hence more participation there. It's amazing that hn is still so good despite all this! Back to the original topic (no article to not read in an "ask hn", it's safe) : an exception are stories that reach a very high number of posts, that usually means that: a) TFA will be something I should not completely miss, even if it's just another Macbook announcement and b) the comments that might be interesting to me will be buried, I won't bother finding them unless the topic is something I specialize in Therefore, if comment counter at 300 and up, straight to TFA