I'm a tad sad seeing Techcrunch.com and ValleyInsider.com on the top 10 submitted urls ;( but this is still my number favorite site as far as people go.
The list of top submitted sites is not a list of the sites users are most interested in. In some cases the site owners submit every post, but many never get enough upvotes to make it onto the front page. To find the sites users are most interested in, you want not the raw number of posts per site, but the number that get over some threshold of points.
Yes, much better. The total submissions/total points are skewed by sites (TC) and blogs (CodingHorror) that post every day, sometimes multiple times per day. If you get enough at-bats, you'll get a lot of hits.
Is TechCrunch a leading VC/Startup news source? I'm not trying to be a smartass. It always seemed like tabloid trash to me. The articles are poorly researched, poorly written and often consist of almost nothing of substance once you get beyond an attention-grabbing headline. I would imagine that's a consequence of the often misleading or, at worst, incorrect articles they have a tendency to publish. As far as I'm concerned they have zero credibility.
"... Is TechCrunch a leading VC/Startup news source? ..."
I'm not saying TC is a good news source, simply noting that it's consistently lists high on posters & voters minds. TC is closer to 'The register' than I'd like.
I've submitted a few NYT stories - but they've all turned out to be submitted by someone else. All of them have been science stories that can't be found elsewhere. My reason for submitting them was, as PG said, they appealed to my hacker mind.
I know it's the alarmist thing to say, but it's starting here.
While there have been flurries of "poor" content accruing a decent set of points in the past, I'm now starting to see a lot of downvoting occurring. Previously, downvotes were used on spam, offensiveness, or flat out "wrong" comments - whereas now it appears to be an indicator of opinion. This shift demonstrates how significant the "new wave" of HN users is.
If that's an official sanction, then I'm in Giles Bowkett's camp. That sort of policy leads to groupthink, not honest debate where people feel at ease to express their opinions, however controversial.
I've routinely voted up people I disagree with because I thought this was a place where opinions across the spectrum were to be encouraged. It would be sad to see this is now not the case and that instead you should say whatever's most likely to get you points. Are the people on the leaders board meant to be the most "average" in opinion as judged by HN readers? That sounds downright boring.
Of course, you might just be saying that's how people use downvoting, not how they should use it - which I'd agree with. Even so, a sanction against this practice would be super as it removes one's motivation to actually express one's true opinion (unless burning karma is one's hobby).
I actually agree with you that it used to be next to impossible to be down-voted here, (unless you were a complete tool) and now it's a lot more frequent, as your comment ironically demonstrates.
There's nothing wrong with using the arrows to express agreement or disagreement. I personally prefer the discussion to be a little polarized, because it seems like we put in a lot more effort into our words in that case.
Comments
Other interesting data: http://top.searchyc.com/
I'm a tad sad seeing Techcrunch.com and ValleyInsider.com on the top 10 submitted urls ;( but this is still my number favorite site as far as people go.
The list of top submitted sites is not a list of the sites users are most interested in. In some cases the site owners submit every post, but many never get enough upvotes to make it onto the front page. To find the sites users are most interested in, you want not the raw number of posts per site, but the number that get over some threshold of points.
http://top.searchyc.com/domains_by_average_points
Is this a better list?
Yes, much better. The total submissions/total points are skewed by sites (TC) and blogs (CodingHorror) that post every day, sometimes multiple times per day. If you get enough at-bats, you'll get a lot of hits.
What's scary is that 'Hot or Not' is on the list. That is the digg-type stuff we need to keep out.
But to be honest, I haven't seen a whole lot of 'fluff' in the short period I've been here.
http://searchyc.com/submissions/hotornot.com
It is not 'digg-type stuff'. It's a founder, talking about a successful startup.
What is the threshold?
"... I'm a tad sad seeing Techcrunch.com and ValleyInsider.com on the top 10 submitted urls ..."
A function of TC being seen as a leading VC/Startup news source and user submissions to extra points?
Is TechCrunch a leading VC/Startup news source? I'm not trying to be a smartass. It always seemed like tabloid trash to me. The articles are poorly researched, poorly written and often consist of almost nothing of substance once you get beyond an attention-grabbing headline. I would imagine that's a consequence of the often misleading or, at worst, incorrect articles they have a tendency to publish. As far as I'm concerned they have zero credibility.
"... Is TechCrunch a leading VC/Startup news source? ..."
I'm not saying TC is a good news source, simply noting that it's consistently lists high on posters & voters minds. TC is closer to 'The register' than I'd like.
I consider techchrunch as tabloid trash. HN is meant for nice informative articles and threads. But sadly now, the quality has gone down.
It'd be nice to look at the same list, but for the last N months. Subjectively it feels that the number of TC stories on the front page has gone down.
While the number of nytimes stories has gone up.
To me this is just as bad. Occasionally their is a good story, but nothing that can't be found at any number of other news sites or blogs.
I've submitted a few NYT stories - but they've all turned out to be submitted by someone else. All of them have been science stories that can't be found elsewhere. My reason for submitting them was, as PG said, they appealed to my hacker mind.
Yeah those are likely the stories I enjoy. Especially when nytimes breaks the story and has it first.
It's worth noting that most of the top submissions are actually really good, whereas on Reddit none of the top submissions are even remotely good.
Comparing the main reddit to HN is hardly fair. There are, for instance:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Entrepreneur/
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/
http://www.reddit.com/r/startups/
You are right! Some submissions are the same. And all submissions have the quality there too.
There was a time when reddit was very good. But then the noise came and it was game over.
I know it's the alarmist thing to say, but it's starting here.
While there have been flurries of "poor" content accruing a decent set of points in the past, I'm now starting to see a lot of downvoting occurring. Previously, downvotes were used on spam, offensiveness, or flat out "wrong" comments - whereas now it appears to be an indicator of opinion. This shift demonstrates how significant the "new wave" of HN users is.
Downvoting has always been used to express disagreement.
If that's an official sanction, then I'm in Giles Bowkett's camp. That sort of policy leads to groupthink, not honest debate where people feel at ease to express their opinions, however controversial.
I've routinely voted up people I disagree with because I thought this was a place where opinions across the spectrum were to be encouraged. It would be sad to see this is now not the case and that instead you should say whatever's most likely to get you points. Are the people on the leaders board meant to be the most "average" in opinion as judged by HN readers? That sounds downright boring.
Of course, you might just be saying that's how people use downvoting, not how they should use it - which I'd agree with. Even so, a sanction against this practice would be super as it removes one's motivation to actually express one's true opinion (unless burning karma is one's hobby).
I actually agree with you that it used to be next to impossible to be down-voted here, (unless you were a complete tool) and now it's a lot more frequent, as your comment ironically demonstrates.
There's nothing wrong with using the arrows to express agreement or disagreement. I personally prefer the discussion to be a little polarized, because it seems like we put in a lot more effort into our words in that case.
Sure we do. Revising your opinions in a way to get extra karma does take a lot more effort.
If you think you're going to lose a bunch of karma for just expressing your opinion, you'll follow the group opinion and it leads to groupthink.
This is pretty cool. Would be even more interesting to see the full distribution on a plot.