3 ms·
You put that excellently. Indeed, Hacker News was and should be a place where social proof is not desired.
by joelangeway 15y ago
You put that excellently. Indeed, Hacker News was and should be a place where social proof is not desired.
- jacques_chester 15y agoEveryone agrees that social proof is deleterious.
- ericd 15y agoNot true, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion - the OP is saying that it's a necessary filter.
- randallsquared 15y ago"Everyone agrees"? :)
- jacques_chester 15y agoEveryone agrees that my sarcastic jokes are funny. Especially the metajokes.
- ericd 15y agoYeah, I should have more faith in the commenters. Not used to attempts at humor here...
- zspade 15y agoHow can I see who's winning this argument without seeing the vote-count!
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- wdewind 15y agoAnd yet what we've left in is the feedback mechanism that provides people a self-centered understanding of how well the community receives them. ie: People are still "scoring points," though maybe we have made the points less valuable.
- _delirium 15y agoOnly in comments, or should we apply that to submissions also? If it weren't for using social proof to decide which stories should be highlighted, why do we have a voting-based front page?
- J3L2404 15y agoIndeed, we should all wander through the net with no inkling of others opinions in order to mitigate some dubious risk. Enlightened people read every article, decide for themselves and then sit silently.