If you ever figure out a way to game HN, then contact PG privately, but unless you know him personally, do not expect a response from him confirming or denying

If you ever figure out a way to game HN, then contact PG privately, but unless you know him personally, do not expect a response from him confirming or denying the existence of the problem. HN uses a lot of anti-abuse code that is not publicly known (e.g. secret sauce), and it's best for everyone if the secrets remain secret. I have privately reported a half dozen or so abuse problems over the last four or five years. Though I live only thirty minutes south of PG, I don't actually know him, so I always give him an "easy out" by telling him no response is necessary when reporting abuse problems. I also refuse to pry regarding the anti-abuse code, even though I have to fight my own excessive curiosity. Ya, I've always wanted to know how it works, but I also understand why I shouldn't be told. It kind of sucks for me, but it's better for everyone if the anti-abuse code continues working. If you're good with search engines and have a ton of time to kill reading posts, then you'll find mentions of "voting ring detection" on HN, but as noted, the details are not public. Anyone who has studied discussion forum design will tell how hellishly difficult voting ring detection is to implement effectively in an open voting environment with (mostly) anonymous accounts. As for the increasing self-promotion seen in submissions, well, it's always been a problem, and worse, it's also a very difficult problem to address effectively. If suitably formalized, you might be able to prove both of these problems to be undecidable (unsolvable, insoluble, or whatever pedantic term is currently being used for impossible). The only good news is, even when you can prove a problem can't be completely solved, there is still the potential of finding a more effective partial solution.