4 ms·

It could be the case that 95% of the readers who encountered the original article on HN thought it was bunk, but didn't want to spend the time to correct it. Or

It could be the case that 95% of the readers who encountered the original article on HN thought it was bunk, but didn't want to spend the time to correct it. Or maybe it's the reverse-- maybe 95% of us believed it was a brilliant invention. I can't think of a way to estimate which is true.

kubrickslair 15y ago
Yes, but my comment was much more general than this particular event or invention. I only posted it because it seemed like a good context.
dennisgorelik 15y ago
I personally suspected that something is likely to be wrong with that "solar battery tree", but didn't have time to dig deeper. I quickly took a look into comments, didn't find any heavyweight names there, didn't find any solid comments and quit without upvoting the article: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902329 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902329 Unfortunately 630 other people upvoted it. I do upvote this "Debunk" article http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2906538 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2906538 Important conclusion: In news ranking I would clearly prefer to rely on subset of Hacker News readers. Not on the full set. I actually would prefer not to see articles that are upvoted by the same people who upvoted junk science article.
- kubrickslair 15y ago
  My comment was NOT about a solar battery tree, but a general philosophical statement about how we interpret and judge information. The moment I start loving HN, I start seeing such Aspergeristic tendencies. So downvote me to hell, but I am stuck between people loving kittens & user-generated 'rage' comics, and between people cannot appreciate broad philosophical ideas. PS: This comment does not have much to do with what the parent said, but a broader problem with HN. And somehow I think this too (like the orignal comment) will be misinterpreted and downvoted to oblivion.
  - pingswept 15y ago
    Consider an alternative possibility, which I think is what actually happened: your comment was written in the context of a discussion about a solar tree, and the first sentence, which did not establish any broader philosophical context, was a statement that several people disagreed with. The remaining three sentences didn't make a coherent argument, at least that I can tell. I don't think that's worthy of downvoting. Still, I think you might get more satisfaction from HN if you framed your arguments more clearly instead of blaming the readers for what you see as their Aspergistic tendencies.
    - kubrickslair 15y ago
      I would agree with you, but the comments were initially upvoted a lot, which tells me some people got it. I think it's my mistake to write it without providing context in the first place. The comments probably made sense to some, but not most because I presumed too much prior knowledge. The comment assumed that every one had more than a cursory idea of peer review. I have worked with people who have published in the best of places (including the venerable Science) and still think that process in badly broken and flawed. And I have seen pretty bad stuff make through great journals. Now this experience is probably different from that of most HN readers, who would view peer review as a purely benign thing. I agree that I did not provide a good enough context to what I was saying. Also to talk about 'Aspergistic tendencies', it's a negative term and I used it because I was irritated. But I would like any of you to please answer this. How should I have phrased the first line any other way, and not appear arrogant. 'We all' is a construction of language thing, to take all off you in the fold. And I think it was pretty obvious 'we all' did not mean literally all. And anyone engaging in a bit of second-order thought could have deciphered that. One can say that the problem is partially because many HN readers are not native English speakers, but I would say neither am I, and it's more of an attitude thing. Programming is almost completely literal, most life is not.
      - pingswept 15y ago
        How should I have phrased the first line any other way, and not appear arrogant. The original: "A bigger point here is how we all mistook the results." Suggested revision: "It's odd that an article that now appears mistaken originally received over 600 upvotes. I wonder how many people would downvote it, given the chance."

kubrickslair 15y ago

Yes, but my comment was much more general than this particular event or invention. I only posted it because it seemed like a good context.

dennisgorelik 15y ago

I personally suspected that something is likely to be wrong with that "solar battery tree", but didn't have time to dig deeper. I quickly took a look into comments, didn't find any heavyweight names there, didn't find any solid comments and quit without upvoting the article: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902329 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902329 Unfortunately 630 other people upvoted it. I do upvote this "Debunk" article http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2906538 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2906538 Important conclusion: In news ranking I would clearly prefer to rely on subset of Hacker News readers. Not on the full set. I actually would prefer not to see articles that are upvoted by the same people who upvoted junk science article.

kubrickslair 15y ago
My comment was NOT about a solar battery tree, but a general philosophical statement about how we interpret and judge information. The moment I start loving HN, I start seeing such Aspergeristic tendencies. So downvote me to hell, but I am stuck between people loving kittens & user-generated 'rage' comics, and between people cannot appreciate broad philosophical ideas. PS: This comment does not have much to do with what the parent said, but a broader problem with HN. And somehow I think this too (like the orignal comment) will be misinterpreted and downvoted to oblivion.
- pingswept 15y ago
  Consider an alternative possibility, which I think is what actually happened: your comment was written in the context of a discussion about a solar tree, and the first sentence, which did not establish any broader philosophical context, was a statement that several people disagreed with. The remaining three sentences didn't make a coherent argument, at least that I can tell. I don't think that's worthy of downvoting. Still, I think you might get more satisfaction from HN if you framed your arguments more clearly instead of blaming the readers for what you see as their Aspergistic tendencies.
  - kubrickslair 15y ago
    I would agree with you, but the comments were initially upvoted a lot, which tells me some people got it. I think it's my mistake to write it without providing context in the first place. The comments probably made sense to some, but not most because I presumed too much prior knowledge. The comment assumed that every one had more than a cursory idea of peer review. I have worked with people who have published in the best of places (including the venerable Science) and still think that process in badly broken and flawed. And I have seen pretty bad stuff make through great journals. Now this experience is probably different from that of most HN readers, who would view peer review as a purely benign thing. I agree that I did not provide a good enough context to what I was saying. Also to talk about 'Aspergistic tendencies', it's a negative term and I used it because I was irritated. But I would like any of you to please answer this. How should I have phrased the first line any other way, and not appear arrogant. 'We all' is a construction of language thing, to take all off you in the fold. And I think it was pretty obvious 'we all' did not mean literally all. And anyone engaging in a bit of second-order thought could have deciphered that. One can say that the problem is partially because many HN readers are not native English speakers, but I would say neither am I, and it's more of an attitude thing. Programming is almost completely literal, most life is not.
    - pingswept 15y ago
      How should I have phrased the first line any other way, and not appear arrogant. The original: "A bigger point here is how we all mistook the results." Suggested revision: "It's odd that an article that now appears mistaken originally received over 600 upvotes. I wonder how many people would downvote it, given the chance."