[msbarnett]

It’s not just the number of points that matter, it’s points over time. 3 points very quickly will rocket you over 20 points in 4 hours or something. And comments factor in too, so commenting “why is this on the front page” just helps it be on the front page

[dang]

That bit about comments is not true, and is rather important, because adding noise comments damages the signal/noise ratio of discussion.

[eevilspock]

I believe a high point to comment ratio ranks a post higher, that a low ratio is considered a sign of contentiousness or low quality post.

[daveguy]

Not to mention this was at 23 points just 3 minutes after the GP post.

It's a technology and business story of general interest. Right in line with HN.

[omgwtf1000]

>> Right in line with HN.

It is unquestionably that.

[dang]

It was heavily flagged by users, so I'd question that. Sensational partisan stories are nearly always off topic.

[msbarnett]

An extremely partisan voting block heavily flagging something is a piss-poor signal for on-topicness, come on. That kind of sloppy logic is a great way to let organized voting rings suppress uncomfortable news, though.

Incredibly embarrassing statement for someone moderating this place to be making.

[dang]

Sorry, I'm not following you here. The sensational-indignant OP, just like anything sensational-indignant of whatever political flavor, is obviously not in line with HN. That should be obvious both in theory (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and in practice (https://news.ycombinator.com/front). So it was correct for users to flag the submission. If people hadn't been flagging such things for well over a decade, HN wouldn't still exist.

I mean, if you want to argue that the story is actually a substantive and intellectually interesting one, containing significant new information (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...), and it's just the title that's sensational-indignant, that would be fine. But that bar is necessarily pretty high when it comes to garden-variety political pieces. If it weren't, then HN would just be a political site.

Edit: btw, adding comments definitely does not help a post stay on the front page - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34041016.

[msbarnett]

> I mean, if you want to argue that the story is actually a substantive and intellectually interesting one, containing significant new information

Why would I want to argue that? It certainty doesn’t describe the million identical ChatGPT circlejerks that rocket to the front page without getting flagged out of existence.

This NFT story was no less tech adjacent than them, and no less vapid and inane than them, but it had the appearance of being embarrassing for a certain hyperpartisan political segment, so it was flagged by a bunch of those supporters, and you in your infinite fecklessness are sitting here back-inventing justifications for this flag based on “well no I’m sure all those flags were about the low intellectual quality of the article” as if 97% of the front page wasn’t idiotic pablum aimed at potted plants.

It’s hard to take seriously the suggestion that you’re too stupid to realize those flags weren’t politically motivated and not just a comment on its indistinguishable-from-any-other-garbage-that-gets-popular quality.

[daveguy]

Were there any acceptable stories about the Trump trading card NFTs? Maybe OP was too biased, but it seemed like an interesting topic in general.

[dang]

Trump and NFTs are both such well-trodden flamebait that it's hard to imagine one , but maybe it's possible to get a -1 x -1 = +1 effect. It's not intrinsically offtopic, just probably so.

[daveguy]

Fair enough. Thank you.