[willy1234x1]

That's not broken. If you had website foo.com and then added bar.foo.com you would expect that your pagerank transfer to your subdomain as well. Of course when the owner of pagerank has this apply to them it's suddenly "broken" though huh?

[Simucal]

I think you ignored mseebach's point.

The mechanics of how the search results are ranked (pagerank) is irrelevant. The system is "broken" when original source content is ranking below people merely linking to it from another site.

[tomkarlo]

I don't think it's that clear cut. I can think of lots of examples where I'd rather see the comments / links from trusted individuals or sites ranked above the original source content, regardless of what search I'm using.

Pagerank shouldn't be universal - it doesn't make sense to believe that the same ranking system should work equally well for all users.

[andrewflnr]

Some very convincing examples would be appropriate here. As for myself, even if I would want to read secondary sources first, I would still want the original content at the top of an unbiased search, recognizing that my desires are somewhat weird and that the original content has a certain moral right to be at the top when searching for that exact content.

[VikingCoder]

I agree.

I think a good way to identify original source content is through author attribution, with trusted identities, in a social graph, curated by users in a web of trust.

Hmm... That sounds like exactly what Google+ is doing.

If you happen to Encircle someone who created the comment in the first place, it's debatable about which post you'd rather see higher.

[willy1234x1]

I think he didn't make it clear enough. The system isn't broken, the original source just has a lower pagerank.I fail to see where the issue is. I've seen links rank lower than their relevant HN or Reddit posts on Google before.

[redorb]

Actually a sub domain is considered a different domain with it's own page rank, I believe this is do to many hosted blogs at wordpress, blogger etc...

[Ideka]

The thing is, the pagerank should not matter. What you want when you search the internet is a relevant result, regardless of its pagerank. If the system relies too much in the pagerank to determine whether a site is relevant to your search terms or not, well, yes, the system is broken.

[willy1234x1]

Alright, I give up on commenting on this site. Always get downmodded into oblivion when I disagree with the hivemind.

[bmelton]

I think you're getting downvoted because you're ignoring the point.

The point isn't that the "Pagerank" system is broken, it's that the "placing quality search results above irrelevant casual mentions" system is broken.

That you continued to reply as though you didn't read the parent remarks is furthering your downvoting.

I don't agree in downvoting on that premise personally (and haven't here), but I certainly understand it, and would state that it's at least better than getting downvoted for having posted an unpopular opinion.

Had you done a better job of explaining your position, or differing it from your original statement when dealt replies that furthered their original claims, then you might have had a chance to recoup some of the cost.

Beating a dead horse on a post that already got downvoted is likely only going to get you more downvotes, and rightfully so.

[willy1234x1]

I fail to see how a site that hides downvotes from users with lower karma isn't furthering a hivemind.

[codexon]

The entire purpose of Pagerank is to estimate the results you desire the most.

Most people here desire the original article instead of a summary on Google+.

You are telling everyone they are wrong and pagerank knows better than them what they want. This isn't futhering a hivemind.

[bmelton]

What do you mean 'hides' downvotes? You mean you aren't allowed to downvote, or that it doesn't tell you who downvoted you?

As for the former, downvoting is a privilege for those who earn it. The bar for insightfulness is deliberately high, and by putting it there, I believe the goal is to encourage everyone to strive for more meaningful commentary.

Looking through your comment history, it seems that you have some valuable opinions, otherwise I wouldn't be pointing any of this out. That said, it doesn't appear as though you put much effort in your posts either.

The hardest thing for me to learn about HN years ago was that it's often easier to just not say anything. I try to reserve my comments to where they either add value, or when my opinion was solicited. I'm not always able to avoid disagreement, but I try to always do so with respect and civility.

Simply put, it's a different place, and even though you shouldn't worry about, karma doesn't just drop in your lap. It's there to be earned. Earning karma takes effort. Effort in abiding the rules, effort in maintaining civility, effort in knowing whether your comment is worth posting or not.

HN is definitely not a groupthink, in my opinion, and some of the best chats on here are about arguments from high-profile users. In many of those arguments, there is resolution, where either one party has convinced the other that they are right, or they are able to come to terms with each others' opinions.

I think if you look at your comments in this thread honestly, with the criteria laid out here, you'll realize that they weren't exactly crafted with love. They aren't deserving of karma. Even if your opinion was unpopular, but presented well and thoughtfully, you'd see that you got karma in the process.

If anything though, karma is a long con. Don't worry about the karma on any given post, but try to keep the long-term average high.