[alexbouchard]

It definitely does and I wonder if there is a larger lesson for other forum / software. We can't seem to be able help ourself and not change things in the name of "improvements" and appart from OSS I can't think of many other example then HN that just held to it's roots.

[noxToken]

Sites like HN tend to plateau unless there are added features to get new sign ups. Full-length profiles, social features like chat, reply notifications and following/subscribing to users are engagement tactics to keep the community engaged with each other. These are site improvements if the goal is to grow beyond the core audience.

[dang]

HN has been growing at the same rate since shortly after it began over a dozen years ago: basically linear, with a lot of swings (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

We want the community to grow—it would be concerning if it didn't. But the engagement tactics you mention aren't necessary for the kind of growth we want. In fact we consciously avoid them. Certain kinds of engagement—probably just the sort that engagement tactics would juice—would harm what we're trying to optimize HN for (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).

The interesting aspect of this, I think, is that HN doesn't need to pursue growth at all costs, the way that a startup would. It's not a startup, nor a business per se, but it's not noncommercial either—it's funded by a business that understands that it's more valuable with HN than it would be without it, and is smart enough not to try to squeeze profit out of it beyond that. YC's business interests are in having HN be as good as possible, not as big as possible. That's odd, and oddly satisfying. It seems to be a historical accident that HN ended up in that sweet spot. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

[noxToken]

Late reply, but I was speaking in generalities. HN doesn't quite fit the bill for a general forum that would improve from those tactics. There is a somewhat focused expectation of submissions, and the comments typically need a certain caliber of quality. Forums like this that deviate from those core tenets converge on being a Reddit clone with fewer users and features.

It's natural for users to engage less and less over time. However, holding the community to a certain standard keeps users from outgrowing the submissions and discussions. No one is too old, too mature, or too "smart" for earnest discussion.

[meristohm]

Is it okay to plateau? If HN keeps going, gaining and losing people over time and not growing above X% of the population, and eventually declining for whatever reason, that seems the way of things. Change happens, and the best we can do is guide it and prepare. It’s okay to live and then die.

[dang]

It's cosmically ok for things to plateau, but from a local perspective I'd be concerned if HN were plateauing. It would mean that something else was wrong. Probably a lot else.

The mandate of the site is to be gratify intellectual curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). Any website achieving such a thing will naturally grow.

[meristohm]

Thank you for the reminder about the intentional limits of this forum:

> One important thing to realize is that we're trying to optimize HN for just one thing, which is curiosity

I’ve found it easier to practice creativity, for example, if I impose some boundaries.

[krapp]

For better or worse, given the contrarian nature of this community, many here would probably view a decline in membership as a good thing.