[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.