[bunabhucan]

The thing that's hard about the intellectual curiosity part is knowing what comments are from actual experts and what are very smart people opining outside the edges of their circle of competence - while still sounding smart.

There was a discussion here where a professor with a specialty on the underlying subject was 'corrected'/crowded out by very detailed comments that sounded cogent, had buzzwords in them but ultimately were incorrect.

Seeing that makes me wonder about the discussion here on topics I know nothing about. Vetted flair for subject matter expertise for users would help. I'm still interested in what a chip designer has to say about astronomy but it would make it easier to weigh the contribution.

[krapp]

You can assume that for any subject other than CS, unless someone specifically mentions their credentials in the field, most commenters won't know what they're talking about. Hacker News has a reputation for "aggressive ignorance" outside of its wheelhouse.

Remember, HN isn't exactly checking anyone's CV at the door. All it takes to post here is knowing how to fill out a web form. The culture here tends to believe the simplistic design somehow draws deep technical intellects like moths to a flame but it really doesn't.

[bunabhucan]

I get that, what's hard is if my made up chip designer is commenting about UI coding or networking topology or something closer to HNs heart.

[krapp]

Yeah, the technical content on HN is kind of a crapshoot too, unfortunately. Just slightly less so than everything else.

I guess it's better to view HN as entertainment than expertise overall.

[vacuity]

That's why I like to read most of the comments on a post, because typically I'll find some useful information scattered throughout. After I'm done, I can roughly get a sense for "excellent comments", "comments that probably have a good point", "medium-quality arguing", and "probably just wrong comments". Then I may seek out other submissions of the same topics to get more data. Over time, I refine which points I think are probably valid. HN has its gems, just perhaps not as often or obvious as advertised.

[ryandrake]

Whenever one of those rare topics comes up where I consider myself a subject matter expert (or where I have non-public knowledge), very often the top comments and the threads getting the most "action" sound HN-smart, but are totally factually wrong. Extrapolating this, I can only assume that the top comments on other topics are also usually wrong and/or contradict actual experts.

[RhysU]

> The thing that's hard about the intellectual curiosity part is knowing what comments are from actual experts and what are very smart people opining outside the edges of their circle of competence...

Three thoughts...

1. I really enjoy seeing what the extremely technically accomplished users think about non-technical topics.

2. I like that only my accumulated knowledge of their usernames allows me to easily connect the dots for thought #1.

3. It is fun when you come to appreciate someone's thinking on many non-technical topics then later, on a technical thread, realize that user is the person behind $SOMETHING_BIG. But that fun relies on accumulating #2.