[diminoten]

HN isn't where you go to learn, HN is where you go to expand the realm of possible information for you to consume.

When you read a comment like the above, your response shouldn't be to demand for sources, your response should be to go research the topic on your own.

This site would be much better if folks understood that HN itself isn't a place for someone to "get wonky".

On my debate team, we had a rule of "no wonking". HN would be a better place if it too had the same rule.

[melling]

It certainly could and should be a place to learn. How do chest pounding statements add value, especially when they fall apart after the first question?

There are definitely a lot of knowledgable people who read this site. Why wouldn't you want them to contribute and take deeper dives? Superficial conversations are essentially noise.

[walterbell]

Readable deep dives by knowledgeable people are more likely to appear on distribution channels with higher compensation than HN.

[diminoten]

If you don't see a qualitative potential difference between a quick reply (HN's comments section), and a well thought out article (HN submissions), then I can't help you.

HN comments sections cannot be more than superficial. Anything more than superficial deserves to be put in a more accessible and readable place, as a topic in its own right.

[melling]

Of course replies can be more than superficial. They can contain facts, historical perspective, personal experience, back of the envelope calculations, or qualitative statements from people with specific domain knowledge.

After a good HN discussion, there would be enough information for another blog.

[diminoten]

No, they can't, because the folks who are commenting at what you think is that level are actually completely unqualified to do so.

The folks who are qualified to write articles and papers on the topics that might interest you, do exactly that. There is no inherent value in wasting intellectual effort on an HN comment. The people who comment on HN are not the people who are the most qualified to speak on a topic in depth, or if they are, their efforts within HN's comment framework will be very limited, and most certainly hindered by the medium, not to mention the audience.

I am personally aware of a handful of genuine experts on HN who comment on articles in their "wheelhouse", and they've never risen to the level of their capabilities while doing so. I don't begrudge them this, it's unreasonable to think they're going to put in the level of effort in an HN comment they put into their professional work, but to suggest HN comments could ever rise to the level of what experts are capable of producing is not only naive, but also greedy, and perhaps more than a little lazy.

If you want to know more about a topic, that's your responsibility. There are a number of ways around which one could wander to learn more about what's currently known regarding a topic, and the folks who are experts and are commenting in HN don't have the time to go through the proper motions of releasing new information. Even if they had the time/inclination, they wouldn't do it here.

If you take nothing else away from my comment, consider the following: This (HN comments section) is a back channel, if anything. You don't scrutinize a back channel, you verify it independently.

You're putting HN on a pedestal. Don't do that.

[wallyhs]

> No, they can't, because the folks who are commenting at what you think is that level are actually completely unqualified to do so.

> The folks who are qualified to write articles and papers on the topics that might interest you, do exactly that.

How could you possibly know who is qualified and who is not? Given that the authors of submitted articles frequently comment on HN themselves, it must be true that at least some HN comments are made by qualified people. But that assumes that writing an article is the sole requirement for being "qualified". Not all articles are written by qualified people. Additionally, many articles are watered down by journalists, and HN threads can provide broader perspectives.

> There is no inherent value in wasting intellectual effort on an HN comment.

There is as much inherent value as there is in wasting intellectual effort in a conversation at a dinner party. If I am talking to someone whose life experience is completely different from mine, I am learning something even though they are not rising to the level of their capabilities. I am allowed to learn subjects superficially out of curiosity and without the blessing of an authority figure. I have to choose who to listen to and who to ignore just like I do with other sources of information such as HN submissions.

Asking for sources in response to an unfounded claim is common on HN. I've never seen anyone called naive, greedy, and lazy for it, though. At any rate, asking for a source does not preclude one from researching the topic separately.

I agree that HN should not be put on a pedestal. Neither should the submissions.

[diminoten]

So you think I'm speaking to you as an authority figure?

[walterbell]

> HN isn't where you go to learn, HN is where you go to expand the realm of possible information for you to consume.

Yes, i.e. discovery of "unknown unknowns".

[patcon]

Hm. Good point. I like that rule.