4 ms·

Could this be used to get rid of "new" altogether? Instead of blocking them from the homepage, just give them a very very small chance of appearing. Might make

Could this be used to get rid of "new" altogether? Instead of blocking them from the homepage, just give them a very very small chance of appearing. Might make the "Knights of New" which are considered self-sacrificing users a thing of the past.

krapp 13y ago
You know what else could be interesting? Display the header for a random item at the top of each page.
crazygringo 13y ago
It's always going to be obvious which ones are new, because they've got 1 vote and are on the front page. I read HN all the time, but confess I never visit "new". I'd definitely be a fan of including 1 random article from "new" for each pageview of the front page -- but make it explicit. Keep it at the top, or in the middle. It seems like that should produce a much "fairer" result. I'd be curious if there are reasons why this wouldn't work -- why HN, reddit, etc. keep "new" on its own page...
- eksith 13y ago
  I always visit /new and it's quite astonishing how many great posts never make it to the front page and instead, quietly drop off. This really has a lot to do with what time of day they post as well. E.G. I've posted around 3AM - 6AM EST (which is usually when I have more free time) and it never makes it. But if I post a bit later, say around 9AM, then it has a much higher chance of coming to the front page. There are a great many good stories that are several pages into /new and I think (with the exception of a handful that are already on the front page) those are barely seen by the vast majority of HN visitors.
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    I've found a very strange case of getting better results from posting at off-peak hours. My theory is that my post stays on the first page of "new" long enough for enough people to vote for it. If I post at peak hours, then my post gets pushed off the front page within an hour, meaning too few people have seen it to get it to the front page.

krapp 13y ago

You know what else could be interesting? Display the header for a random item at the top of each page.

crazygringo 13y ago

It's always going to be obvious which ones are new, because they've got 1 vote and are on the front page. I read HN all the time, but confess I never visit "new". I'd definitely be a fan of including 1 random article from "new" for each pageview of the front page -- but make it explicit. Keep it at the top, or in the middle. It seems like that should produce a much "fairer" result. I'd be curious if there are reasons why this wouldn't work -- why HN, reddit, etc. keep "new" on its own page...

eksith 13y ago
I always visit /new and it's quite astonishing how many great posts never make it to the front page and instead, quietly drop off. This really has a lot to do with what time of day they post as well. E.G. I've posted around 3AM - 6AM EST (which is usually when I have more free time) and it never makes it. But if I post a bit later, say around 9AM, then it has a much higher chance of coming to the front page. There are a great many good stories that are several pages into /new and I think (with the exception of a handful that are already on the front page) those are barely seen by the vast majority of HN visitors.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  I've found a very strange case of getting better results from posting at off-peak hours. My theory is that my post stays on the first page of "new" long enough for enough people to vote for it. If I post at peak hours, then my post gets pushed off the front page within an hour, meaning too few people have seen it to get it to the front page.