3 ms·
Do you mean populist? I don't understand your argument otherwise. Popular stories are destined for the frontpage - and the problem is?? I'm not being snarky - I
by sharpn 17y ago
Do you mean populist? I don't understand your argument otherwise. Popular stories are destined for the frontpage - and the problem is??
I'm not being snarky - I just don't understand your logic. Are you suggesting that HN should only (or mostly) contain posts that we can't already get from more 'mainstream' sites? That makes some sense as an ideal, but would be very subjective & I'm not sure that's what you mean. Please can you expand?
- vaksel 17y agoNo, what I'm saying is that a popular source like techcrunch has a much easier time making it to the front page, no matter the quality of content. Mostly due to the simple fact, that a lot more people read that source. By making popular sources, require more upvotes, it would make the front page more merit based. Let's face it, making the front page is pretty easy right now, I've had stories I submitted hit frontpage with 2 upvotes. By making big sites like techcrunch require something like 10 upvotes instead, it would at least eliminate most of the fluff pieces.
- sarvesh 17y agoI don't think it would too hard to categorize in the manner you are suggesting but that would take away the leverage users have over what gets to be on the front page. I am not sure of this but submitters karma points may have something to do with how many up votes are required before it lands on the front page. If that is true, considering that you high karma may you shouldn't submit those stories.
- sharpn 17y agoThankyou, yes I think I see your point & it is a valid one. But I suspect any such complicating of the rating algorithm would be of very marginal benefit, if any. For example, I enjoy not having to ever visit TC directly, knowing that I can wait until a TC link gets enough points on HN & the HN comments suggest it might be worth reading :o)