3 ms·

I have to strongly disagree. The lengthy article has much more thought put into it. It's almost always better researched and the author usually has relevant exp

I have to strongly disagree. The lengthy article has much more thought put into it. It's almost always better researched and the author usually has relevant experience or expertise, and those are usually at least known to the reader in some way or easily discovered. I have seen many, many cases where a big portion of the top comments are either saying something similar to what the author of the article said, or they are asking a question, or raising a rebuttal, that is already addressed in the article. Comments are short and probably have close to zero research on average. Experience may play a part, but people don't usually offer up the resume with a comment, so you have no idea if they even have credibility. And there are mountains of witticisms, anecdotes, or emotional arguments that add little to nothing of value to the conversation. Personally, I almost always read the article and then skim the comments to see if anybody has added any thoughts I might find interesting.

arc-in-space 5y ago
A part of the problem here is distinguishing which articles are worth reading. I may know that a Dan post is probably good, but if I saw this exact same headline taking me to a long article on <random tech news site>, I'd probably skip it and skim the comments instead, since chances are the article itself is near worthless.
jader201 5y ago
There’s not much to disagree with here. I simply stated my experience — I never even said my experience was right or that it is wrong to read the article, or that others should experience HN the way I do. I’m a slow reader and don’t have time to read lengthy articles, and therefore am drawn more to discussion. You are (likely) a quicker reader and are drawn more to articles. There’s room for both of us in the world — and on HN (I hope).
- Kiro 5y ago
  You said "I often wish HN would just allow titles to get posted and HN folks just have a discussion around that". If there's anything I can wholeheartedly say I disagree with it's that, so yes there's a lot to disagree with here.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    I think that was an inadvertent juxtaposition of the words "just" and "allow": the GP probably didn't mean that links to articles should be forbidden, and only subjects for discussion ("titles") should be allowed to be posted. At least I read their comment as "I often wish HN would allow, besides links, just titles to get posted and HN folks just have a discussion around that". Would you still wholeheartedly disagree with that, too?

arc-in-space 5y ago

A part of the problem here is distinguishing which articles are worth reading. I may know that a Dan post is probably good, but if I saw this exact same headline taking me to a long article on <random tech news site>, I'd probably skip it and skim the comments instead, since chances are the article itself is near worthless.

jader201 5y ago

There’s not much to disagree with here. I simply stated my experience — I never even said my experience was right or that it is wrong to read the article, or that others should experience HN the way I do. I’m a slow reader and don’t have time to read lengthy articles, and therefore am drawn more to discussion. You are (likely) a quicker reader and are drawn more to articles. There’s room for both of us in the world — and on HN (I hope).

Kiro 5y ago
You said "I often wish HN would just allow titles to get posted and HN folks just have a discussion around that". If there's anything I can wholeheartedly say I disagree with it's that, so yes there's a lot to disagree with here.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  I think that was an inadvertent juxtaposition of the words "just" and "allow": the GP probably didn't mean that links to articles should be forbidden, and only subjects for discussion ("titles") should be allowed to be posted. At least I read their comment as "I often wish HN would allow, besides links, just titles to get posted and HN folks just have a discussion around that". Would you still wholeheartedly disagree with that, too?