What I meant by "the metrics are flawed" is, how you personally evaluate the reputation of another user is a personal choice based on very limited and potential

What I meant by "the metrics are flawed" is, how you personally evaluate the reputation of another user is a personal choice based on very limited and potentially deceptive input. Additionally, how the system itself evaluates reputation of a particular user, article or post is also imperfect. Only part of the algorithms for evaluating reputation are revealed in the HN source code [1] but other parts are not public. PG has stated HN runs with some of his own personal, unpublished modifications for the sake of preventing people from gaming an imperfect system. The up/down vote and 'flagging' feedback from users is important input, and does help the system more fairly evaluate things. Since the vote/flag input is from human beings basing their decisions on incomplete information and personal preferences, you can see how the system will remain imperfect. A good example is below I cracked a joke about divulging PG's secret to success being talking to himself in a soundproof closet... --the downvote I got tells me someone didn't find it funny. Such is life. On the bright side, if you can think of a way to avoid the imperfections in a reputation evaluation system, you could make millions, and you would certainly have PG's attention. It's a painfully difficult problem to crack, potentially undecidable, so even a better imperfect solution would be extremely valuable. [1] http://www.arclanguage.org/ http://www.arclanguage.org/