3 ms·
It is disappointing to me as well. People should be upvoting articles based on quality, not headline-bait or baseless rants (no data of bugs, no logs, etc) or
by Joakal 15y ago
It is disappointing to me as well.
People should be upvoting articles based on quality, not headline-bait or baseless rants (no data of bugs, no logs, etc) or rants where the person is oblivious (locks are in the docs).
Unfortunately, I can't downvote links. Like other sites, I can only ignore it for so long before it's drowned in noise (lack of interesting quality links).
- politician 15y agoMany submissions don't make it to the front page given what I've seen on "new", but here we had a rant that - like it or not - made a number of serious allegations against MongoDB; some number of which, after examination by HN regulars, were confirmed by 10gen in a follow-up piece by RWW. I don't really understand your position or complaint - are you suggesting that the anonymous nature of the source is sufficient to disqualify it outright? Who determines 'baselessness', isn't that a consensus process? Are you commenting on a general feeling that HN promotes a lower number of quality links then "in the earlier days"?
- bigiain 15y ago"People should be upvoting articles based on quality" Yeah, but by what measure of "quality"? I don't hang around here with the intention of curating non-participating readers news feeds, I keep coming back for the interestingness of the discussions that result from submitted links. The true or falseness of the linked article is way less important (to me) than the opportunity for interesting comments. ('course, maybe _I'm_ doing it wrong...)