4 ms·

> Scoring, ranking and sorting people is important for the future of the web. [...] You need some sort of analyses/score/rank to value the content shared by som

> Scoring, ranking and sorting people is important for the future of the web. [...] You need some sort of analyses/score/rank to value the content shared by someone. This strikes me as some kind of variant of the ad hominem fallacy. You don't need to know anything about the author to value their content. A piece could be anonymous or the author's sole work and still be worth reading; conversely, people with high internet reputations often write garbage. Edit: I meant appeal to authority, not ad hominem. Insufficient coffee error.

zlatanmenkovic 13y ago
True, but anonymous posts that get endorsed by the people you know have authority on that subject is a good indication. And of course, you as a person can do this as one of the best. But can humans process a daily 400 million tweets this way?
jasonlotito 13y ago
You're new to HN, so I'll let you in on something: while sometimes the message is more important than the messenger, many times it's not. Who says something is just as important. If that we're not the case, HN would remove the usernames as well. There is a reason people provide context for what they say by sharing their experience. And just like in real life, taking legal advice from IANAL isn't something you should blindly do.
- threedaymonk 13y ago
  > If that we're not the case, HN would remove the usernames as well. That doesn't follow. And, funnily enough, HN does deemphasise the author by showing the name in small grey text. There are plenty of reasons to attribute posts: the conventional expectation that one can be identified as the author of one's work, for one; the tendency of people to be more civil, for another. > You're new to HN, so I'll let you in on something Come on, I know I've only been here for nearly four years, but there's no need to be quite so patronising.
  - jasonlotito 13y ago
    > Come on, I know I've only been here for nearly four years, but there's no need to be quite so patronising. I wasn't being patronising. I was trying to make a point (though, I'll admit, it wasn't obvious). I admit that attempt was clumsy. Sorry for making you feel like you were being patronized. My intent was 100% honest though. I was trying to show what could happen if association was removed. If context was removed. If I don't know who you are, how can I quantify your advice. After all, I'm much more inclined to appreciate people's opinions on the state of HN year over year if they've been participating longer than that. > the conventional expectation that one can be identified as the author of one's work, for one; the tendency of people to be more civil, for another. And context. Advice is cheap. Everyone can offer advice. And context helps us rate that advice. Just because something sounds good doesn't mean it should be followed, or even listened to. And it's fairly easy to make a mistake in authoring what you say to the point that people misunderstand you, even if it's not what you meant.
danso 13y ago
> This strikes me as some kind of variant of the ad hominem fallacy. You don't need to know anything about the author to value their content. A piece could be anonymous or the author's sole work and still be worth reading; conversely, people with high internet reputations often write garbage. Er, while we're citing logical fallacies...isn't your last assertion here an example of confirmation bias? Often, people with "high internet reputations" are heard most often, which means that when what they say is garbage, it will be quite prominent and memorable.

zlatanmenkovic 13y ago

True, but anonymous posts that get endorsed by the people you know have authority on that subject is a good indication. And of course, you as a person can do this as one of the best. But can humans process a daily 400 million tweets this way?

jasonlotito 13y ago

You're new to HN, so I'll let you in on something: while sometimes the message is more important than the messenger, many times it's not. Who says something is just as important. If that we're not the case, HN would remove the usernames as well. There is a reason people provide context for what they say by sharing their experience. And just like in real life, taking legal advice from IANAL isn't something you should blindly do.

threedaymonk 13y ago
> If that we're not the case, HN would remove the usernames as well. That doesn't follow. And, funnily enough, HN does deemphasise the author by showing the name in small grey text. There are plenty of reasons to attribute posts: the conventional expectation that one can be identified as the author of one's work, for one; the tendency of people to be more civil, for another. > You're new to HN, so I'll let you in on something Come on, I know I've only been here for nearly four years, but there's no need to be quite so patronising.
- jasonlotito 13y ago
  > Come on, I know I've only been here for nearly four years, but there's no need to be quite so patronising. I wasn't being patronising. I was trying to make a point (though, I'll admit, it wasn't obvious). I admit that attempt was clumsy. Sorry for making you feel like you were being patronized. My intent was 100% honest though. I was trying to show what could happen if association was removed. If context was removed. If I don't know who you are, how can I quantify your advice. After all, I'm much more inclined to appreciate people's opinions on the state of HN year over year if they've been participating longer than that. > the conventional expectation that one can be identified as the author of one's work, for one; the tendency of people to be more civil, for another. And context. Advice is cheap. Everyone can offer advice. And context helps us rate that advice. Just because something sounds good doesn't mean it should be followed, or even listened to. And it's fairly easy to make a mistake in authoring what you say to the point that people misunderstand you, even if it's not what you meant.

danso 13y ago

> This strikes me as some kind of variant of the ad hominem fallacy. You don't need to know anything about the author to value their content. A piece could be anonymous or the author's sole work and still be worth reading; conversely, people with high internet reputations often write garbage. Er, while we're citing logical fallacies...isn't your last assertion here an example of confirmation bias? Often, people with "high internet reputations" are heard most often, which means that when what they say is garbage, it will be quite prominent and memorable.