4 ms·

What about a 2.5 year old account with no karma? You'd be surprised at how many lurkers there are. I know quite a few (and was one myself up until a short while

What about a 2.5 year old account with no karma? You'd be surprised at how many lurkers there are. I know quite a few (and was one myself up until a short while ago). EDIT: added emphasis

andymism 16y ago
Karma's really a proxy for community participation, albeit kind of one-sided since you don't get increased karma for up-voting someone else (and rightfully so). I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that if you don't participate, then you don't get to solicit the help of others. But the bar is much lower than that. For the purpose of just keeping spam accounts out, I think the combination of a karma threshold with average non-karma accruing activity over time (such as upvoting others, clicking through on articles, etc) could be an effective filter.
handrake 16y ago
Like myself. Been around for a couple of months now and this is my second comment!
davidwparker 16y ago
Agreed. I lurked here for about one year before I made an account. Even after I made an account, I still rarely comment.
scottnyc 16y ago
I as well. I've been 'lurking' on hacker news for almost two years. It doesn't mean I don't want to participate, it's just that whenever I do have something to say it's typically been addressed already by another user (the topics I'd probably post on are the hot-topics that draw more eyes.) And I'd rather not add redundancy to comments. To me the natural game mechanics that arise from 'gunning for karma' by being first to post (relevantly) takes a lot of effort.
- boredguy8 16y ago
  I started posting less when the karma ratio became a big deal. But you can still pick up a point or two here and there by making encouraging comments to people far down a thread. This does add value to the community, but it's not a big shot-in-the-arm like a popular submission or a relevant "first post". They do, however, add up.
- David 16y ago
  That's basically where I'm at (speaking of redundancy). I'm usually afraid to say something wrong, since I know that there are always experts on the topic of the post. It makes more sense to me to let said experts explain a particular topic than to possibly disseminate wrong information, even though I might have a useful perspective to add.
  - patd 16y ago
    People shouldn't be afraid to say something wrong. If you say something wrong, people should correct you and everyone will learn (including readers that don't know anything about the subject). The issue is if people that see that you're wrong, instead of correcting you, just downvote you. In my opinion, a wrong statement should not be buried with downvotes, it should stay at 1 point with a reply that corrects it and that get a lot of upvotes.

What about a 2.5 year old account with no karma? You'd be surprised at how many lurkers there are. I know quite a few (and was one myself up until a short while ago). EDIT: added emphasis

andymism 16y ago

Karma's really a proxy for community participation, albeit kind of one-sided since you don't get increased karma for up-voting someone else (and rightfully so). I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that if you don't participate, then you don't get to solicit the help of others. But the bar is much lower than that. For the purpose of just keeping spam accounts out, I think the combination of a karma threshold with average non-karma accruing activity over time (such as upvoting others, clicking through on articles, etc) could be an effective filter.

handrake 16y ago

Like myself. Been around for a couple of months now and this is my second comment!

davidwparker 16y ago

Agreed. I lurked here for about one year before I made an account. Even after I made an account, I still rarely comment.

scottnyc 16y ago

I as well. I've been 'lurking' on hacker news for almost two years. It doesn't mean I don't want to participate, it's just that whenever I do have something to say it's typically been addressed already by another user (the topics I'd probably post on are the hot-topics that draw more eyes.) And I'd rather not add redundancy to comments. To me the natural game mechanics that arise from 'gunning for karma' by being first to post (relevantly) takes a lot of effort.

boredguy8 16y ago
I started posting less when the karma ratio became a big deal. But you can still pick up a point or two here and there by making encouraging comments to people far down a thread. This does add value to the community, but it's not a big shot-in-the-arm like a popular submission or a relevant "first post". They do, however, add up.
David 16y ago
That's basically where I'm at (speaking of redundancy). I'm usually afraid to say something wrong, since I know that there are always experts on the topic of the post. It makes more sense to me to let said experts explain a particular topic than to possibly disseminate wrong information, even though I might have a useful perspective to add.
- patd 16y ago
  People shouldn't be afraid to say something wrong. If you say something wrong, people should correct you and everyone will learn (including readers that don't know anything about the subject). The issue is if people that see that you're wrong, instead of correcting you, just downvote you. In my opinion, a wrong statement should not be buried with downvotes, it should stay at 1 point with a reply that corrects it and that get a lot of upvotes.