4 ms·

Completely disagree. The articles are the most valuable part of the site. Regardless of personality or politics, most can rightly agree that things like "Fanc

Completely disagree. The articles are the most valuable part of the site. Regardless of personality or politics, most can rightly agree that things like "Fancy Euclid's “Elements” in TeX" or "Text rendering using multi channel signed distance fields" are noteworthy accomplishments. What some asshole thinks about those things, and what a bunch of other assholes think about his thinking, are neither here nor there--this comment included.

greenyoda 7y ago
I've found that articles, even those that hit the front page, vary widely in quality, and the same is true for comments. Some commenters are experts in their field, and their comments are worth reading. For example, I've learned more about security by reading tptacek's comments than I have by reading articles on security.
- Ultramanoid 7y ago
  Indeed. And that is value only found in HN's comments. Weirdly less valuable ( by karma measure ) than just posting links anyone can find online.
Ultramanoid 7y ago
That's not my point. Of course articles are the most valuable part. But how does it make sense to give 400 points to a submitter out of 5 who posted the same thing ? And often to an article which may not be neither the first, nor the best about the issue. That's what I mean by entirely random. Furthermore, without threads and comments HN would just be another link aggregator from some relatively fixed sources. And you prove my point about comments mentioning a-holes, in that useless ones would be downvoted while useful or informative ones would be upvoted, and quite rightly bestow karma and benefits to contributors deserving it. That would make sense. You wouldn't see actual a-holes, they'd be downvoted to oblivion.
- jstewartmobile 7y ago
  Giving the big points to submitters encourages people to keep submitting. Maybe one of the other five will get lucky next time.
  - Ultramanoid 7y ago
    I upvote every submission of the same article that I find interesting or useful, but it gets ridiculous after a while. And not to do so seems utterly wrong from my point of view, since points are given to submitters, and receiving points grants them benefits. Maybe if HN consistently registered the first submitted link and marked all others as dupes automatically. Even so, still seems a flawed reward system.
    - masonic 7y ago
      I upvote every submission of the same article that I find interesting ... then you are intentionally rewarding submitters of dupes?
      - Ultramanoid 7y ago
        So I should vote only the first submitter and to do so hunt down all the instances of the article posted before, to find out who was the first ? And that'd be the value in karma -- who submits first ? Sure, it'd make at least more sense than it does now, which is randomly giving hundreds of karma points to anyone. Still wrong in my view, and worth giving more value to comments. I've already commented anyway, not sure why HN does not automatically register the first time a link is submitted and redirect the rest to the first one.

greenyoda 7y ago

I've found that articles, even those that hit the front page, vary widely in quality, and the same is true for comments. Some commenters are experts in their field, and their comments are worth reading. For example, I've learned more about security by reading tptacek's comments than I have by reading articles on security.

Ultramanoid 7y ago
Indeed. And that is value only found in HN's comments. Weirdly less valuable ( by karma measure ) than just posting links anyone can find online.

Ultramanoid 7y ago

That's not my point. Of course articles are the most valuable part. But how does it make sense to give 400 points to a submitter out of 5 who posted the same thing ? And often to an article which may not be neither the first, nor the best about the issue. That's what I mean by entirely random. Furthermore, without threads and comments HN would just be another link aggregator from some relatively fixed sources. And you prove my point about comments mentioning a-holes, in that useless ones would be downvoted while useful or informative ones would be upvoted, and quite rightly bestow karma and benefits to contributors deserving it. That would make sense. You wouldn't see actual a-holes, they'd be downvoted to oblivion.

jstewartmobile 7y ago
Giving the big points to submitters encourages people to keep submitting. Maybe one of the other five will get lucky next time.
- Ultramanoid 7y ago
  I upvote every submission of the same article that I find interesting or useful, but it gets ridiculous after a while. And not to do so seems utterly wrong from my point of view, since points are given to submitters, and receiving points grants them benefits. Maybe if HN consistently registered the first submitted link and marked all others as dupes automatically. Even so, still seems a flawed reward system.
  - masonic 7y ago
    I upvote every submission of the same article that I find interesting ... then you are intentionally rewarding submitters of dupes?
    - Ultramanoid 7y ago
      So I should vote only the first submitter and to do so hunt down all the instances of the article posted before, to find out who was the first ? And that'd be the value in karma -- who submits first ? Sure, it'd make at least more sense than it does now, which is randomly giving hundreds of karma points to anyone. Still wrong in my view, and worth giving more value to comments. I've already commented anyway, not sure why HN does not automatically register the first time a link is submitted and redirect the rest to the first one.