[whatshisface]

>It turns out that public access forums calibrated for the small and self-selected community of mostly high quality internet pioneers aren't prepared to deal with 1000000x expansion of reachable audience.

"Checklist for new theories purporting to prove that the social web is presently unworkable:"

...

26. The predicted conflicts still wouldn't be as bad as Usenet flamewars.

27. Your theory proves that Hackernews does not exist. <---

28. Audiences afraid of engaging with an unfamiliar interfaces weren't making websites in 1998 either.

...

[rogers12]

This forum has been decreasing in quality since its inception, currently hovering at not-quite-reddit and that's with an organic audience of tech-adjacent posters. It would turn into a smoking hole in the ground if it somehow caught worldwide attention.

You're a fish swimming in fragile water you fail to appreciate.

[yen223]

For those who don't know, you can click the "past" link in the toolbar, and see for yourself what HN was like on any given past day, and judge for yourself whether the quality has declined

https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2008-08-24

[gyomu]

There's an interesting phenomenon where any time a long time HN user says that discussion quality has been declining (something many have reported), a moderator will essentially say that people have been claiming that for as long as they've been moderating, but that it does not match their observations.

I've always found that contradiction interesting (and puzzling).

[kelnos]

My theory is that it's two things:

1. People change. My HN account is 15 years old, and my interests and ambitions and tolerances are not the same as they were in 2009, when I was 28 years old and in a very different place in my life. When you interact with something for many many years, even if that thing stays exactly the same, you change, and think differently about it.

2. The site changes, too, of course. They aren't necessarily bad changes (and often I would say they're good changes!), but people sometimes associate change with negative feelings, especially with something they have an emotional attachment to or at least have been a part of for a long time.

Mind you, I don't think discussion quality has been declining here. In many ways I think it has been improving, or at the very least staying the same under a barrage of new users, higher scale, and low-effort LLM-generated comments.

[jart]

I also joined HN in 2009 and I agree with you. HN isn't perfect but it's about as respectful and intelligent of an organic community as it gets on the public web. When I do analytics on my blog, an upvote on HN is worth 10 on Reddit. Manipulative paywalled media pieces usually stay off the front page. I love how when I read news about a famous CEO like Matt Mullenweg, I can see him commenting here like the rest of us. I also think we're very fortunate to have dang running things.

[plorkyeran]

In 2010 I found the average HN comment far more insightful and likely to be true than I do in 2024. I am fairly certain that this is almost entirely due to me changing, and not the content of the site. At a very basic level my views on the concept of a VC funded startup is so very different now from what it was in 2010 that I would certainly interpret all of those discussions very differently now.

When Google takes me to a very old discussion on HN I am usually surprised by how similar they are to threads from today, even if some of the specific viewpoints in vogue are different.

[kelnos]

I disagree. Quality has certainly varied over the years, but HN is still miles above Reddit. I'm not a heavy Reddit user, but every time someone or something links me to Reddit for something I might find interesting, the comments are mostly garbage. The same tired memes and jokes, over and over and over, tons of low-effort comments, not much substantial, curiosity-piquing discussion.

Sure, maybe there are some subs that are better, but I doubt I'd be convinced to spend more time on Reddit and less on HN. Certainly there are useful places on Reddit; I've gotten a lot of mileage out of searching for product reviews or general customer support questions on Reddit, but that's kinda a "single purpose" visit, not something for general curiosity.

I feel like there are some long-time HNers (your account was only created two years ago, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you've changed accounts or have just been a super long time lurker) feel like quality has gone down; that's almost a meme of its own. Hell, the HN guidelines even has a blurb about how tired it is to suggest HN is turning into Reddit.

But I think it's a lot more accurate to say that quality ebbs and flows, and varies between articles and topics. And yes, sometimes the focus of the site (based on what submissions get voted to the front page, and what kind of discussion happens) shifts in ways that make my interest wane a bit, though always only temporarily. But that's not the same thing as quality.

[typewithrhythm]

I'm speculating, but I think the big difference is the barrier to downvoting something here is greater.

If you say something controversial over at Reddit there is a substantial chance you get piled on and labelled a troll, unpopular positions cannot be expressed without the risk of no longer being able to participate.

Anything you suspect will generate something other than a bland, mildly positive response is too risky to express.

[johnfn]

> It would turn into a smoking hole in the ground if it somehow caught worldwide attention.

This seems untrue? Of course I like HN, but from the perspective of a typical person, HN is an ugly, hard-to-use website with "news" that caters to a small fraction of the population and is likely quite uninteresting to the rest. I think this is why it manages to stay roughly the way that it is - that and extremely thorough and strict moderation to keep it that way.

[GavinGruesome]

Fluids can't be fragile.

[ddulaney]

As the guidelines [0] state:

> Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills.

See the link for some examples, but I can also recommend looking at some old front pages from over the years and poking through the discussions. Unscientifically, it seems that quality is pretty similar to me.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[Dylan16807]

Context.

That's a rule for jumping into a conversation and making petty putdowns.

It doesn't mean "if someone says HN has never been better, you're not allowed to disagree".

[philwelch]

My HN account is older than either of yours, so I don’t think I can be dismissed as a “semi-noob”. rogers12 is mostly correct, sad to say. dang has done a good job slowing the decline (and I actually noticed an uptick in quality when he first took over) but HN is past its peak.

[kelnos]

My account is a few weeks older than yours, and my opinion is pretty much the exact opposite of yours.

I still get a ton of value out of HN, even after over 15 years. I visit multiple times a day, and genuinely enjoy reading articles and comments, and joining the comment threads myself. It's not perfect; there's certainly annoying crap, bad-faith posters, trolls, spam, LLM-generated junk, etc. But (with the exception of the LLM-generated junk) none of that is new since I first started hanging out here. Overall the quality of discussion (like this one!) is still quite high, and there isn't another news/interest/discussion site on the internet where I spend anywhere near as much time, even after 15+ years.

(I'm not going to argue about whether or not it has "peaked", since that's not a particularly useful measure. If quality is a scale from 0-100, and we already hit 100 but are now hovering around 80, stably, then who cares if the peak is in the past? The quality is still fine.)

[tptacek]

When was its peak, what would you say characterized that peak, and what are some clear indicators of the decline?

[philwelch]

This is a good question that probably deserves more thought and effort than I can apply to it. I would say that when HN was at its peak, the overall vibe of the commentary reflected the perspective of people who people who built things, while the overall vibe today reflects the perspective of people who like to go online and bitch about things.

There’s a famous email exchange—I’m sure you’re familiar with it—where someone writes to Steve Jobs complaining about a bunch of things Apple was doing, and they go back and forth a few times, and Steve Jobs finally gets annoyed and writes back, "By the way, what have you done that's so great? Do you create anything, or just criticize others’ work and belittle their motivations?" HN these days is absolutely full of people who don’t seem to do anything but criticize others’ work and belittle their motivations.

I’m not saying that HN never had unfair criticisms in the good old days—the “middlebrow dismissal” has been a trope here for a very long time—but we didn’t use to have entire threads filled with nothing but middlebrow dismissals. And we also had tons of people criticizing Apple, but then again most of them were complaining that Apple was actively interfering with their attempts to create things (e.g. the uproar over arbitrary and unfair App Store moderation policies).

The clearest indicators of decline to me have been the signs of evaporative cooling. Maybe I’m falling into a different common fallacy by saying this, but I do think HN was a lot better when the old regulars—yourself included—were more active. I don’t exactly blame you guys, but it is an indicator.

[FreakLegion]

It feels like some threshold was crossed in early 2023. That's when I noticed it, at least, in the long, crazed threads on the SVB bank run and murder of Bob Lee. There've been a lot more of those low-quality discussions since, but the good parts of HN are still here, too.

[MichaelZuo]

That doesn’t seem to be the claim, just that the average quality is trending downwards just like reddit.

It’ll probably never converge because reddit is getting worse at an even faster rate.

[Uehreka]

Quoting the HN guidelines at people is a semi-noob practice, as old as the hills.

[mrob]

I think you're underestimating how effectively the old-fashioned text-based design repels users who would lower the quality of the site. (Although as Usenet proves, high-quality moderation is also necessary.)

[Nihilartikel]

Weeellll. Not every forum has a dang. Just saying.

[immibis]

Almost every one does.

[kelnos]

Most are nowhere near as thoughtful and effective as he is, though.

[dangerwill]

Given that hn is the forum of yc, I think we should not feel comfortable with it's trajectory even if dang does a great job moderating. Garry Tan is in the ceo chair here and he is currently advocating for a purge of the homeless, democrats, and "anti-tech" people from San Francisco. A Republican who is too ashamed to admit being a Republican (preferring Grey vs Blue or the network state concept) , who drunkenly tweets death threats at his political opponents is not trustworthy.

[Arubis]

HN’s association with YC has felt looser every year for over a decade at this point. If not for the Jobs link, the subtle username colors, and the domain, it’d almost be forgettable.

[kelnos]

I'm not sure how much things have changed, but when HN was semi-spun-off into its own autonomous unit inside YC, dang was given the option to change reporting structure so he'd report directly to the board (and not CEO) if he ever thought that was a better arrangement. If he hasn't done so, then I trust that he hasn't felt he's needed to, and that YC's leadership hasn't meddled in HN's operations.

And if he has pulled that trigger, I expect things are still fine, else he'd leave and go elsewhere.

[dangerwill]

Oh I did not know that this had happened. That actually does resolve a fair bit of my worry. Thanks!!