3 ms·

That was posted a few hours ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22382606 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22382606

• dredmorbius 7y ago
  Thanks. I think I'll recommend merging the articles.
• dang 7y ago
  OK, we've moved the comments thither. Thanks!
  • simonebrunozzi 7y ago
    Well done. It might be interesting to "weigh" certain websites negatively (e.g. Forbes), especially when they continuously use click-baits and other dishonest techniques to deceive their audience.
    • dredmorbius 7y ago
      AFAIU that is done, though I'm not sure Forbes makes the list. I have no idea if it's a list per se or of all sites get some weighting factor, starting with 1, and falling (or possibly rising) from there. In terms of general reputation / link-worthiness, this is an interesting question/problem online. Also the general problem of assigning reputation on a site-wide or domain-wide basis. There are more and less reputable parts of, say, "facebook.com". I don't think all of "google.com" should be treated similarly (more a problem when "plus.google.com" was an active member of that domain, and not even a proper subdomain component). Wordpress would come to mind. Which means that when you're assigning reputation(s), the assignable handle is an issue. Does it map sufficiently well to what it is you want to give a high or low reputation. The problem even exists for individual people. I have friends I'd trust for book recommendations but not food suggestions, and vice versa. Scientists, philosophers, and politicians notoriously are highly reliable in some domains but not others. The universe is complicated.