[noahnoahnoah]

Absolutely no offense taken, and I actually share your desire to avoid KoolAid drinking. Every post should be evaluated on it's merits, and while I can only speak for myself, I hope that things that I write only end up on the front page when they have sufficient merit.

[pron]

Also, there is a problem with the voting process here (and on other sites, obviously) in general. If everyone upvote what they like, this is almost certain to ensure that the most interesting stuff never makes it to the front page, because I may like something that is truly original and thought-provoking, and also something nice about, say, GitHub (I'm just focusing on GitHub as an example. They're A-OK). The result is that the mainstream stuff gets lots and lots of votes, but what really interests us doesn't. What you don't upvote is just as important as what you do. I've just posted (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3559105) an interesting lecture by Noga Alon about voting paradoxes.

In addition, I think (though I may be wrong) the HN algorithm makes second chances nearly impossible. If something doesn't make it to the front page within a couple of hours since its posting (or even 30 minutes), it never will.

[pron]

Actually, I think the way a post gets to the front page is this: first, it has to get about 4 upvotes during the half hour or so it stays on the first "newest" page (depending on the time of day this could be longer). This is the critical point. After that, most upvotes are received by posts that have made it to the front page and are somehow distributed among them, possibly based on merit, points for discussion etc. But it's that crucial stage of getting those 4 votes or so in such a short period of time that excludes much of the good stuff, and lets "brand-names" a certain spot.

In addition (once on the front page) there's this whole cult following thing. E.g., anything about GitHub is certain to get a whole-lotta love.