4 ms·
It's interesting that this post is falling off the front page so quickly. At the time of writing it has 537 points and is 8 hours old. There are many above it w
by a13n 6y ago
It's interesting that this post is falling off the front page so quickly. At the time of writing it has 537 points and is 8 hours old. There are many above it with much fewer points, that are much older (eg. 127 points, 12 hours).
It makes me wonder if YC intentionally penalizes posts like these, because ideas like these make it harder for their portfolio companies to hire employees.
- pyrophane 6y agoI believe it penalizes articles that have a large number of comments relative to votes.
- laser 6y agoThat doesn't hold explanatory power in this case, look at the points, comments, and age. For "Modeling a Wealth Tax", "Canon's Cloud..." and "If founders treated...": https://www.dropbox.com/s/vk1i2q8mlbs5x2s/Screen%20Shot%202020-08-18%20at%205.12.58%20PM.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/vk1i2q8mlbs5x2s/Screen%20Shot%2020... I'm also suspicious, although most suspect as sibling comment to yours suggests, that it's likely something automated rather than malicious. Perhaps there's too few comments?
- kevinskii 6y agoIt's a good question, but Sam Altman has written about the need to compensate startup employees more fairly (see the link at the bottom of the article). Also, these types of "startup equity is worthless" articles tend to pop up frequently on HN, where they often linger on the front page for hours and generate the same discussions in the comments. If this article is being penalized at all, that's probably the reason. HN generally penalizes articles about recurring topics. I suspect YC realizes it's in their best interest for their portfolio companies to be fair and transparent in their equity offers.