3 ms·

I’m also wondering what fraction of evergreen articles are actually marked with a date. For example this submission [1] was much more popular than the same subm

by 3rd3 12y ago

I’m also wondering what fraction of evergreen articles are actually marked with a date. For example this submission [1] was much more popular than the same submission with a date [2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589346 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=589346 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6426905 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6426905

minimaxir 12y ago
That's more-or-less the randomness of Hacker News in play. Which makes the analysis referenced in the post especially flawed.
- 10001110101 12y ago
  Author here. For context, here is the mentioned analysis: http://contextly.com/blog/2014/11/some-analysis-all-hacker-news-evergreen-stories/ http://contextly.com/blog/2014/11/some-analysis-all-hacker-n... Here is the section that addresses the randomness you speak of: "For a given month, consider the collection of scores of evergreen stories (or non-evergreen stories). It is reasonable to assume that the observed collection of scores is only one of many possible ways the collections of scores might have occurred, i.e. the scores could have occurred with different values from what we observe. Rephrased as a thought experiment, if we had the ability to repeat the story submissions for a given month many times, we would expect the scores to vary from one attempt to the next. Let’s formalize this concept. In the analysis that follows, we treat each measurement as a realization of a random variable. For example, in a given month, let’s say there are n evergreen stories, each with a score. We view the collection of scores in a given month as being generated by a sequence, X_1, …, X_n, of independent random variables."
  - minimaxir 12y ago
    The "randomness" I'm referring to is the answer why one submission got more points than another. It depends on multiple factors, such as time submitted, density of other submissions, current events etc. This is the same reason your theory is flawed: assuming "independent random variables" only works if events have an equal probability of occurring.
ttty 12y ago
maybe 2000 days ago there were less people?
- 3rd3 12y ago
  Good point. Ideally, the data should be normalized wrt. total number of HN accounts. But it’s likely just meant as a treasure trove of submission, which it probably still is to some extent.

by 3rd3 12y ago

minimaxir 12y ago

That's more-or-less the randomness of Hacker News in play. Which makes the analysis referenced in the post especially flawed.

10001110101 12y ago
Author here. For context, here is the mentioned analysis: http://contextly.com/blog/2014/11/some-analysis-all-hacker-news-evergreen-stories/ http://contextly.com/blog/2014/11/some-analysis-all-hacker-n... Here is the section that addresses the randomness you speak of: "For a given month, consider the collection of scores of evergreen stories (or non-evergreen stories). It is reasonable to assume that the observed collection of scores is only one of many possible ways the collections of scores might have occurred, i.e. the scores could have occurred with different values from what we observe. Rephrased as a thought experiment, if we had the ability to repeat the story submissions for a given month many times, we would expect the scores to vary from one attempt to the next. Let’s formalize this concept. In the analysis that follows, we treat each measurement as a realization of a random variable. For example, in a given month, let’s say there are n evergreen stories, each with a score. We view the collection of scores in a given month as being generated by a sequence, X_1, …, X_n, of independent random variables."
- minimaxir 12y ago
  The "randomness" I'm referring to is the answer why one submission got more points than another. It depends on multiple factors, such as time submitted, density of other submissions, current events etc. This is the same reason your theory is flawed: assuming "independent random variables" only works if events have an equal probability of occurring.

ttty 12y ago

maybe 2000 days ago there were less people?

3rd3 12y ago
Good point. Ideally, the data should be normalized wrt. total number of HN accounts. But it’s likely just meant as a treasure trove of submission, which it probably still is to some extent.