4 ms·

I’ve been thinking how to make an HN killer for several years. (I’m not sure why — I love this place — but I also love a good challenge.) The key might be to o

by shawn 8y ago

I’ve been thinking how to make an HN killer for several years. (I’m not sure why — I love this place — but I also love a good challenge.) The key might be to out-compete HN in Show HNs. It’s difficult to get your own projects onto the front page, and once there, most people tend to focus on business aspects rather than raw hacker / tinkerer aspects. If you mix in some intellectually gratifying stories to fill the downtime, then you’d end up catching the interest of makers. And that seems like a recipe for a competitor.

toyg 8y ago
> The key might be to out compete HN in Show HNs. That would basically become ProductHunt. And if you emphasize Ask HN, you end up with early Quora. The real killer, imho, would be to give automatic prominence to actual experts and "players" in their fields. The best side of HN for me is (or was) watching the interaction of "nerd-celebs" and makers, but they are now discouraged by the volume of noise (which includes yours truly). Moderation can only do so much.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  It's not strictly noise, per-se, but the biting vitriol of comments and downvotes. There are moments of insightful dialog, but more commonly I get tired of the way things turn into a grudge match. Especially in light of the Endless September phenomenon, I'm not sure how one solves this problem, as every online forum seems to eventually devolve to that state.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    The basic problem is two very incompatible goals. You don't want to become part of an echo chamber[1], but at the same time you want to protect yourself from fools. The hope of every moderation system is to solve both. We've seen HN-style crowd control and folks on twitter using ban lists, and both have problems. In a lot of ways, I think Advogato[2] was on to something with their web of trust. The line on wikipedia Despite the trust metric, posting privileges to the front page of Advogato have been gained by controversial individuals, leading some to claim Advogato's trust metric solution is faulty. seems like sour grapes. I still think its worthy of another couple of steps down that path. Also, I think folks miss handling the joy of tangents cause a lot of problems in moderation that are really just a structure problem. Mostly they are marked as off-topic and down-voted which cuts down on some amazing streams of knowledge. I have yet to see a system that allows branching of something the poster knows will be off-topic but is a tangent of the main article. It seems like generated articles might be the way to go and leave a "tangent pointer" in the main article. I think solving the tangent problem would solve a lot of moderation problems and hard feelings of the users. I really don't like some solutions, like shadow banning or making every comment by a user drop to the bottom of the sort right away with little hope of getting "above the fold" no matter how many upvotes the comment gets. 1) Although, quite a few people actually do want to be part of the majority with only the "acceptable" opposition represented. This pattern repeats so often, it makes me think its just baked into humanity's tribal thinking. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advogato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advogato
    - raphlinus 8y ago
      I think it's worth continuing to explore as well, but the basic observation holds. Whenever you have a metric, the wannabes and self-promoters will game it. The people who are actually expert usually don't have the same kind of motivation to get their voice heard above the noise. I've had some discussions with the lobste.rs folks about another attempt to do a sophisticated trust metric, but nothing ever rose to the level of "we should do this."
      - protomyth 8y ago
        The people who are actually expert usually don't have the same kind of motivation to get their voice heard above the noise. Interestingly, a lot of people know who the real experts are. I sometimes wonder about why most systems focus on the internal to the exclusion of any real world input.
- GW150914 8y ago
  A couple of problems with that. First you have the noise created by big egos clashing, and second, you’d lose the anonymous “accout made just for this” exposees and stories from the trenches. I think in the former case it would become painfully clear that you’d still find a great deal of noise, albeit from different sources, and in the latter a loss of richness. Plus you’d be setting up whoever ran the site as a gatekeeper or who is a “star” and that is ripe for abuse.
  - natecham 8y ago
    I agree the two problems you presented can be tough to solve and are interesting problems to consider: 1. Managing egos can become a problem, maybe some sort of ability for users to tag comments with logical fallacies to try and encourage rational arguments? 2. Could users use some sort of anonymous verification for throwaway comments? A global key to sign their anonymous comment? There's definitely work done in this category, I found https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-36213-2_17 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-36213-2_... after a quick google. I think you bring up a slightly different point in the end, the gatekeeper/moderator is a much harder problem to solve and related to the clash of egos. Ultimately, rewarding critical thinking, limiting power of censorship and growing the community organically are key here
- Harkins 8y ago
  We have something along these lines: https://lobste.rs/hats https://lobste.rs/hats
- rtpg 8y ago
  To be honest, Twitter has been pretty eye opening about the value of "expert opinions" on a lot of stuff. It has become the perfect platform for self-owns (granted, the format doesn't help) I've found that HN tends to upvote "good" comments, so most threads end up bringing the important stuff on top. Usually the insightful stuff comes from experts, since being an expert helps! And people like patio11 end up consistently on the top of comment threads because it's Good Content(TM). But sometimes someone relatively unknown will simply be making a good point. That's what I'm here for, the good information. And at least in our industry, either the experts are on here, or they're not but their followers will post a link to their blog/G+ and the information shows up on here anyways. If we had Twitter-style "voice proportional to follower count/retweet potential" stuff, then a lot of things would fall through the cracks. Sometime's I'm curious about what person X thinks about a thing, but I've found it's a feeling too similar to wanting to hear gossip/validation of my own thoughts, rather than the Quest For Knowledge.
  - westoncb 8y ago
    That's an interesting (and valid, imo) point. My guess is that on Twitter the prominent experts are less interesting because: 1. They're already speaking from a position of superiority in a certain sense, whereas on HN you're just in a conversation with everybody. You might be pretty important, but then maybe Alan Kay will jump in or something. 2. There isn't the same kind of prompting on Twitter that we get from the stories here which commenters are replying to. Instead, it's just the expert talking about whatever they want: maybe interesting to them, but not so much to everybody else. 3. The Twitter format doesn't encourage the same depth of discussion as HN, stemming from the initial character limit, but perhaps now just a vestigial consequence. It could be interesting to have a site somewhere between HN and Twitter though—something that filters out more newbs/trolls, but doesn't exclude capable unknowns. Maybe you need an invite from someone involved in order to join, or maybe there are some questions you'd be required to answer which might establish you're on the right side of some threshold of intelligence, creativity, decentness, ability to communicate, etc. Then again, I also agree HN is doing a pretty good job of ensuring good comments become visible.
amptorn 8y ago
A killer in what way? More popular? Better community? Actually make money?
- kbenson 8y ago
  > Actually make money? Depending on how you do the accounting, I imagine HN is very profitable. How many people apply to the incubator because of HN? How many of their startups get a big word of mouth boost from the free publicity and association? Regardless of how it's entered on the tax forms, I imagine the HN costs are considered well worth it by the investors.
  - nickpsecurity 8y ago
    I've even gotten job offers from HN. Definitely can be profitable. I'd say it's rarely profitable for most of us. Just a nice place to learn about stuff and meet interesting people. The profit potential is a bonus.
- shawn 8y ago
  Socially. HN might be relevant in a hundred years, or it might not. And if it isn’t, who will be? Why? It’s tantalizing to think it’s possible to make that site right now.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cdbattags 8y ago
I'm curious how many of y'all have seen the recent hubbub generated from https://cake.co https://cake.co. With all the latest Apple memories I've been looking to see how they plan on shaping it.

by shawn 8y ago

toyg 8y ago

> The key might be to out compete HN in Show HNs. That would basically become ProductHunt. And if you emphasize Ask HN, you end up with early Quora. The real killer, imho, would be to give automatic prominence to actual experts and "players" in their fields. The best side of HN for me is (or was) watching the interaction of "nerd-celebs" and makers, but they are now discouraged by the volume of noise (which includes yours truly). Moderation can only do so much.

poulsbohemian 8y ago
It's not strictly noise, per-se, but the biting vitriol of comments and downvotes. There are moments of insightful dialog, but more commonly I get tired of the way things turn into a grudge match. Especially in light of the Endless September phenomenon, I'm not sure how one solves this problem, as every online forum seems to eventually devolve to that state.
- protomyth 8y ago
  The basic problem is two very incompatible goals. You don't want to become part of an echo chamber[1], but at the same time you want to protect yourself from fools. The hope of every moderation system is to solve both. We've seen HN-style crowd control and folks on twitter using ban lists, and both have problems. In a lot of ways, I think Advogato[2] was on to something with their web of trust. The line on wikipedia Despite the trust metric, posting privileges to the front page of Advogato have been gained by controversial individuals, leading some to claim Advogato's trust metric solution is faulty. seems like sour grapes. I still think its worthy of another couple of steps down that path. Also, I think folks miss handling the joy of tangents cause a lot of problems in moderation that are really just a structure problem. Mostly they are marked as off-topic and down-voted which cuts down on some amazing streams of knowledge. I have yet to see a system that allows branching of something the poster knows will be off-topic but is a tangent of the main article. It seems like generated articles might be the way to go and leave a "tangent pointer" in the main article. I think solving the tangent problem would solve a lot of moderation problems and hard feelings of the users. I really don't like some solutions, like shadow banning or making every comment by a user drop to the bottom of the sort right away with little hope of getting "above the fold" no matter how many upvotes the comment gets. 1) Although, quite a few people actually do want to be part of the majority with only the "acceptable" opposition represented. This pattern repeats so often, it makes me think its just baked into humanity's tribal thinking. 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advogato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advogato
  - raphlinus 8y ago
    I think it's worth continuing to explore as well, but the basic observation holds. Whenever you have a metric, the wannabes and self-promoters will game it. The people who are actually expert usually don't have the same kind of motivation to get their voice heard above the noise. I've had some discussions with the lobste.rs folks about another attempt to do a sophisticated trust metric, but nothing ever rose to the level of "we should do this."
    - protomyth 8y ago
      The people who are actually expert usually don't have the same kind of motivation to get their voice heard above the noise. Interestingly, a lot of people know who the real experts are. I sometimes wonder about why most systems focus on the internal to the exclusion of any real world input.
GW150914 8y ago
A couple of problems with that. First you have the noise created by big egos clashing, and second, you’d lose the anonymous “accout made just for this” exposees and stories from the trenches. I think in the former case it would become painfully clear that you’d still find a great deal of noise, albeit from different sources, and in the latter a loss of richness. Plus you’d be setting up whoever ran the site as a gatekeeper or who is a “star” and that is ripe for abuse.
- natecham 8y ago
  I agree the two problems you presented can be tough to solve and are interesting problems to consider: 1. Managing egos can become a problem, maybe some sort of ability for users to tag comments with logical fallacies to try and encourage rational arguments? 2. Could users use some sort of anonymous verification for throwaway comments? A global key to sign their anonymous comment? There's definitely work done in this category, I found https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-36213-2_17 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-36213-2_... after a quick google. I think you bring up a slightly different point in the end, the gatekeeper/moderator is a much harder problem to solve and related to the clash of egos. Ultimately, rewarding critical thinking, limiting power of censorship and growing the community organically are key here
Harkins 8y ago
We have something along these lines: https://lobste.rs/hats https://lobste.rs/hats
rtpg 8y ago
To be honest, Twitter has been pretty eye opening about the value of "expert opinions" on a lot of stuff. It has become the perfect platform for self-owns (granted, the format doesn't help) I've found that HN tends to upvote "good" comments, so most threads end up bringing the important stuff on top. Usually the insightful stuff comes from experts, since being an expert helps! And people like patio11 end up consistently on the top of comment threads because it's Good Content(TM). But sometimes someone relatively unknown will simply be making a good point. That's what I'm here for, the good information. And at least in our industry, either the experts are on here, or they're not but their followers will post a link to their blog/G+ and the information shows up on here anyways. If we had Twitter-style "voice proportional to follower count/retweet potential" stuff, then a lot of things would fall through the cracks. Sometime's I'm curious about what person X thinks about a thing, but I've found it's a feeling too similar to wanting to hear gossip/validation of my own thoughts, rather than the Quest For Knowledge.
- westoncb 8y ago
  That's an interesting (and valid, imo) point. My guess is that on Twitter the prominent experts are less interesting because: 1. They're already speaking from a position of superiority in a certain sense, whereas on HN you're just in a conversation with everybody. You might be pretty important, but then maybe Alan Kay will jump in or something. 2. There isn't the same kind of prompting on Twitter that we get from the stories here which commenters are replying to. Instead, it's just the expert talking about whatever they want: maybe interesting to them, but not so much to everybody else. 3. The Twitter format doesn't encourage the same depth of discussion as HN, stemming from the initial character limit, but perhaps now just a vestigial consequence. It could be interesting to have a site somewhere between HN and Twitter though—something that filters out more newbs/trolls, but doesn't exclude capable unknowns. Maybe you need an invite from someone involved in order to join, or maybe there are some questions you'd be required to answer which might establish you're on the right side of some threshold of intelligence, creativity, decentness, ability to communicate, etc. Then again, I also agree HN is doing a pretty good job of ensuring good comments become visible.

amptorn 8y ago

A killer in what way? More popular? Better community? Actually make money?

kbenson 8y ago
> Actually make money? Depending on how you do the accounting, I imagine HN is very profitable. How many people apply to the incubator because of HN? How many of their startups get a big word of mouth boost from the free publicity and association? Regardless of how it's entered on the tax forms, I imagine the HN costs are considered well worth it by the investors.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  I've even gotten job offers from HN. Definitely can be profitable. I'd say it's rarely profitable for most of us. Just a nice place to learn about stuff and meet interesting people. The profit potential is a bonus.
shawn 8y ago
Socially. HN might be relevant in a hundred years, or it might not. And if it isn’t, who will be? Why? It’s tantalizing to think it’s possible to make that site right now.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

cdbattags 8y ago

I'm curious how many of y'all have seen the recent hubbub generated from https://cake.co https://cake.co. With all the latest Apple memories I've been looking to see how they plan on shaping it.