Excellent analysis and I think the proposed algorithm would work well against clickbait titles. HN could trial several different algorithms over a period of a w

Excellent analysis and I think the proposed algorithm would work well against clickbait titles. HN could trial several different algorithms over a period of a week each and watch the metrics. Thinking out loud: Part of HN’s charm is that niche content can surface to the top and many here are experts in their field, contributing great insights unavailable in normal media (example: pilots discussing possible causes after an airplane crash). That means the rest of us get to learn something new with perspectives from the best and many newbies become interested in more. That’s what top University classrooms feel like. I’m not sure what metric would quantify that quality (just # of comments as a metric encourages rage posting, maybe # comments with high upvotes?). The current system, although game-able and full of false negatives also has entropy built in - randomness that is more likely to give a wider range of content to the front page. That helps with genetic algorithms, so it might be of benefit, but missed if not quantified. If gaming the system counts - the most persistent also win some more. Another option to consider is duration of stay on articles. From testing it seems Google factors in duration of stay on content as search criteria as well, which skews rankings towards longer pages. Those also tend to be ad-supported and likely within Google’s own advertising network. Within HN, more comments increase duration of stay, so that would likely increase provocative content, so may not be a good idea, but testing would surface that and more.