[tibbar]

My best engagement on Hacker News has come from submitting great discussion topics; content is secondary. You're trying to think of something that people would really enjoy talking about if they just got the chance. So if you can notice systemic issues and perhaps give them a name, you're halfway to the front page already. When they read your title, people think of all kinds of related ideas that they've been dying to discuss! Indeed, with a good enough title, you barely need an article at all...

[dijit]

Agreed, when it comes to writing for hackernews I have had the best results personally when being curious but incomplete.

If I try to actually educate someone or do my research fully, either someone will know more than me, and an expert will weigh in to invalidate some section of my posting- or people will pretend to be an expert- and you’ll spend a day trying to discuss why what they’re saying is incorrect. Both will cause the discussion for other people to die.

The best has been tangents that are tangentially related to the topic presented. There can be multiple of these subthreads and they always make for interesting reading.

[hakunin]

> If I try to actually educate someone or do my research fully, either someone will know more than me, and an expert will weigh in to invalidate some section of my posting- or people will pretend to be an expert- and you’ll spend a day trying to discuss why what they’re saying is incorrect. Both will cause the discussion for other people to die.

Personally, I love the debates that stress-test my posts, they're the most interesting part for me. If I put effort into writing something, might as well defend it, and wouldn't want any punches pulled. Oftentimes people's attempts at debunking my message end up doing quite the opposite to what I'd expect — further validating what I wrote. Other times I need to clarify something in the post.

[dijit]

Yeah, I agree.

But it does sting a bit to do a month of research and then someone comes along in 10s and invalidates it.

I still welcome it, but it does sting.

The more annoying ones are the ones who don’t engage and act emotionally when presented with a conclusion they don’t like. The reason for me to write most often is because I found something I think is worthy of being discussed and that almost never aligns with peoples preconceived sensibilities.

[hakunin]

Agree with that too. I like watching people debate, and oftentimes it feels like magic when someone can thoughtfully counter a hard hit. It stings being on the receiving end of it, but the confidence grows when you counter a few of those. It also teaches you to debate yourself, which makes future work easier to defend. I guess I'm just saying that after a while this can become a calm/enjoyable hobby. Like giving talks in front of an audience for some people (something I haven't been able to push myself into.)

[paulpauper]

Are you talking about writing in the context of HN comment or submitting links?

[dijit]

I’m talking about writing blog posts and them being submitted to hackernews. :)

[90s_dev]

Yeah, HN is an excitement factory. I come here when I want to talk about something I'm excited about, or read people talking about what they're excited about.