4 ms·
Unrelated to article: I'm not sure how this post made it to the front page so fast. It's been up for ~ 5 mins and it's already #7 on my list with 7 pts. Did you
by JTon 13y ago
Unrelated to article: I'm not sure how this post made it to the front page so fast. It's been up for ~ 5 mins and it's already #7 on my list with 7 pts. Did you people who upvoted even read the article? Doesn't look like it.
- minimaxir 13y agoThe domain where the article was posted is very important. It's a good indicator of article quality.
- jarek 13y agoRephrased: people upvote because of who said it, not what was said
- Crito 13y agoAfter doing some experimentation with Bayesian classification of HN articles (for selecting articles that interest me) I've actually found that titles, rather than URLs, domains, or even article text, is one of the best indications of how good an article (and the accompanying discussion) will be. (This is one of the reasons that I hate the moderators reverting article titles to less descriptive ones.)
- saraid216 13y agoShare that somewhere?
- Crito 13y agoI haven't, but I can if you're interested. "Best results" in this case is pretty subjective so I didn't perform any rigorous experiments about the relative quality of each method, that was just a general observation that I had. The program itself is just a quick HN scrapper combined with a naive bayes classifier which periodically runs and sends selected article titles to an IRC channel.
- minimaxir 13y agoIt's a little bit of both submission title and domain. In this particular case, the title contained an "I": when people looked who the "I" was, they immediately upvoted.
- peterjmag 13y agoGuilty as charged. I sometimes use upvoting as a means of simply marking a story for later, based on an interesting title or a familiar author. Unlike Reddit, HN doesn't distinguish between a vote for quality and a "save" action (as evidenced by the "saved stories" link in your profile).