Ask HN: Is Hacker News broken?

[krausejj]

I'll keep it short... I'm a critic, who is also promoting an alternative (https://mendoapp.com), but when I post something I've written or built on hacker news, and I have access to analytics, I see that referral traffic from hacker news is typically zero, or less than whatever vote count I receive (which is typically not a lot of votes).

so, based on this, I don't believe anyone is really evaluating new submissions, and I don't believe it's possible to get exposure on hacker news without a voting ring.

if that's the case, can we really trust that hacker news is surfacing the best content?

[wyldfire]

> I don't believe anyone is really evaluating new submissions

No doubt it's dominated by a few brave/power-hungry souls.

> I don't believe it's possible to get exposure on hacker news without a voting ring.

At least in my experience, I see ~15-20% of my submissions rocket to the top of HN. It's usually a function of just how much of a draw there is from the title.

> can we really trust that hacker news is surfacing the best content?

shrug, aside from some possible missed yet-greater-HN opportunity, it seems like it works well enough.

[krausejj]

do you feel like the 20% of your submissions that go to the top are your best submissions?

for me, my submissions that get attention are not my best submissions, IMO.

i can spend a long time on a really thoughtful idea or product, and get zero clicks from a hacker news submission, whereas sharing a poorly researched press article with a clickbaity headline goes to the front page.

it's really disappointing.

[yesenadam]

Well, it is called Hacker News, not Hacker Show. Looking at the Show page (which I rarely do), most of even the top page has hardly any comments. People come here for news, to discuss things...For me, some of the best things are on AskHN. Mostly when I've asked questions, I get little or no response. They're things I would comment on if I saw them asked, I eagerly await answers, but usually..not much response. (I didn't post "Is Hacker News broken?" asking why HN ignored my fascinating questions, saying how HN doesn't know quality etc. That would've been weird, don't you think.)

People are busy with their own stuff. News, I guess, being generally informed, comes under "one's own stuff"; checking out other's peoples' stuff, especially the new and untested, is something else. Probably mostly not worth bothering about.

Why assume the voting would be accurately proportional to the quality of the submission? Although you seem to be comparing News clicks with Show clicks - apples with oranges. It's hard to put oneself in the shoes of an imagined HN reader, what would make them want to click through to something. Probably it's good that people can't guess - if it was the total 'echo chamber' it's accused of being, people would share more similar taste, I guess.

[amingilani]

I agree. I've felt like that similarly, but I realize that I'm biased in certain ways. Things that appeal to me don't necessarily appeal to everyone.

I religiously watch and post Kurzgesagt videos, but they've never been upvoted. Every year, I've posted a story on how someone took over a .int domain. These are brilliant "hacker" topics but what makes it to the front page are my submissions on "www vs apex domain" and criticisms of the GPL.

You've got to realize: HN isn't a superset of what every hacker loves, it's a subset. Most of the time, what we like doesn't get voted up.

[gus_massa]

I usually read the newest page. It's full of crap but form time to time you can find something interesting to upvote. (I use "show dead", the [dead] post are even worst, but from time to time you can find some false positive that deserves a vouch.) Please consider spending some time in the newest page. (disclaimer: I don't like threads with more than 100 comments, so looking at the newest page is a good way to find interesting post without a discussion that is totally out of control.)

I submit stories from time to time, very few, like one per month. Some are my own post and some are thing that I found. I don't use a voting ring, and approximately 1/3 of my submissions get 10 or more upvotes. I have a few with more than 100 votes.

[Nomentatus]

There are forum systems in which shadow-banned people can see and interact only with other shadow-banned people. It would not be surprising if those who submit their own sites as regular stories end up quickly shadow-banned to discourage that practice.

[jstewartmobile]

HN is a heavily moderated asset of a seed accelerator. I wouldn't be so sure that surfacing the best content is even the objective.

Lobste.rs seems a little more tech-centric. Reddit seems a little more open. All are limited by STEM groupthink, but HN is the 800lb gorilla for the time being, so we all just have to put that in our pipes and smoke it.

[_Schizotypy]

That depends on your definition of "best" which is entirely subjective

[krausejj]

it's subjective, but i think most would agree that "best" doesn't mean "requires a voting ring to get actual consideration" or "requires a super-clickbaity title" (like the title of this post)