[xsace]

Well you just said it: "Anything that good hackers would find interesting" and not "Anything that anyone would find interesting".

[delinka]

And how does one determine whether the upvote button was pressed by "a good hacker" rather than "anyone?"

[Bulk70]

I'm a hacker, and I found this interesting. What now?

[asifjamil]

If only there was a way people could vote on certain stories based on if they felt the article was interesting or not.

Oh wait.. /s

[xsace]

Read again,

I said it IS interesting ... to anyone.

You see the content drive the audience and then the audience drive the content.

Too much broad interesting articles and it's not Hacker News anymore.

[kenbellows]

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the guideline. In set theoretic terms, "good hackers" are a subset of "anyone". Thus, something that's interesting to anyone is by definition interesting to good hackers as well, and is therefore fine. The problem arises when there are too many submissions that are not interesting to good hackers. That's what keeps this community from becoming just another StumbleUpon or Digg or /r/news. If it's not interesting to most "good hackers", it's off topic. If it's interesting to "anyone", to include "good hackers", then it's fine.

[DanBC]

What's the difference?

[xsace]

The difference is the audience.

While I found this article interesting in itself, it's something that can be interesting to anyone, regardless of its background.

While harmless at first look, this can be an issue if too many content fall into this category.

Then you end up with a reddit clone instead of HackerNews. I'm here to see hacker news, not interesting stuff for anyone.

[krapp]

"good hacker" is a subjective term and an obvious True Scotsman. It might as well mean nothing more than "your interests correspond to the interests of the moderators."