Does this create a rich-get-richer type scenario, where users with high averages get more exposure, thus leading to higher averages?
(you will notice the numbers are different on the HN leaders page for people, I think perhaps searchyc is an all-time average?)
Like the frontpage ranking algorithm, the comment ranking algorithm also considers recency.
An alternative way to think about it is that it adds more stability to the system, for better or for worse.
The whole thing has a circular dependency: if ranking acts as a filter, then higher rank means more readers, and that in turn means more upvotes and so a higher ranking. It is probably not so much the top being undeserving, but that deserving stuff gets missed.
This seems to be a fundamental weakness in all similar 'ranking' systems, but I am not sure of the full character and implications...
(There is certainly a substantial component of being an automated system of 'social-proof'. And the filtering can never be entirely effective: if you show everyone only the good stuff, the filtering would not get done at all.)
Otherwise they get poor real fast.
So someone with a huge number of highly rated comments, could make a lot of dumb comments before it started hurting them.
I'm sure pg will come up with an appropriate formula.
This would still serve as a filter, but this wouldn't result in some kind of whitelist where you effectively only really notice the people you know you're going to agree with anyway. Whitelists encourage groupthink, and incorrectly penalize low-karma users. (Nobody is going to friend users who only occasionally comment even though the quality of their comments is really high.)
I prefer any solution that filters out the noise over any solution that gives emphasis to the opinions of popular users with high karma.
http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/55745
I also second the suspicions about whitelisting being a desirable thing.
Thoughts?
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/mkdhfabjcebcgnpg...
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/mkdhfabjcebcgnpg...
I think we all owe you a great deal of thanks for HN, and I certainly think that we may not share this sentiment enough. Thank you, Mr. Graham. Simplicity in design truly is elegance, and I feel that--sometimes--too much flashy Web 2.0-related cruft tends to distract from the content (as the submitter points out). Certainly the Twitters and Facebooks of today and tomorrow have their uses, but I'm not so sure it's a good thing for society at large that we're moving toward content consumption limited to 140 characters. Worse, when one is so distracted by the interface of a site like Digg--as the submitter mentioned with regards to votes and such--does the visitor cross a dangerous threshold between actually reading/enjoying the content or does it spiral downwards into some sort of meta-evaluation for pseudo-rewards instead of a truly rewarding and educational experience? Me, I think I'll stay here. I don't read news to be entertained.
For me, reading HN truly is a great joy to experience, and I know a great deal of that is in the community you have created. Whenever I click on "comments" from an article, I've grown to expect that I'm going to read through a meaningful chain of conversations and am far less likely to encounter something unpleasant. Aesthetics aside (and these certainly play a significant part of why I like HN--the simplicity is an amazing breath of fresh air), one of the the more qualitative reasons I find HN so much more appealing is the community. It has been my experience that comments generally don't devolve into flamewars, and it is delightful to see that disagreements here remain respectful and substantive. Perhaps part of this is precisely because of the simplicity: Those who come here expecting to be entertained go elsewhere; those who come here to browse meaningful submissions stay and contribute.
I was (and still am, I suppose) a long time reader of Slashdot, but I could never quite get interested in Digg and its kin; they're all effectively modern tabloids with over-sensationalized submissions (this includes Slashdot). HN is an altogether different beast, and it wasn't until about a year ago when a friend of mine directed me to something posted here. I was greatly astounded at the time that, in 2008-2009, there would exist a site that doesn't hide itself behind flashy UIs and simply delivers raw content, bottled at the source. What a breath of fresh air! Make no mistake about it: HN is deceptive. What it might lack in fanciful (and, IMO, obnoxious) features, it more than makes up for in its submissions. When I come here, I know that I'll immediately have access to meaningful content--I won't be distracted by fluff.
My only regret with regards to HN is that I didn't seen the site sooner!
Once again, thank you Mr. Graham.
-- A short-time reader of HN who truly wishes he'd experienced it much earlier on!
I guess what I like about HN is the high expectations it allows us to keep.
Still, it's unfortunate that explaining why one happens to appreciate something like HN is considered "ass kissing" these days. My post wouldn't read any different even if Mr. Graham were someone completely different. I appreciate HN for what it is.
Posts like yours, sadly, give me pause for thought that perhaps I jumped the gun too early, but then I am reminded that certain subsets of the community generally frown upon verbose thank yous.
I'll be more cautious in the future with regards to my praise. Thanks for correcting me.
The problem I perceive is that average score does not say much about a specific comment being non-productive, so someone with a high average score could toss in some complete junk and get it sorted to the top in spite of better comments by average under producers further below.
I'd say that if it remains below the detection threshold it might be a net plus, if too many of such instances appear it might be a loss.
Here is a link to the detailed thread about the experiment of putting user names of high-karma/comment users in orange,
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=467181
which as you'll see was a controversial experiment. (I post this link for the newer members of HN who weren't participating when the experiment was tried.)
With their snoots in the air, they would sniff and they’d snort “We’ll have nothing to do with the Plain-Belly sort!”
And, whenever they met some, when they were out walking, They’d hike right on past them without even talking.
Ironically I've been thinking of adding some variant of following as a way to deal with the increasing volume of comments. I just haven't had time to yet.
I did recently (about 3 weeks ago) tweak the algorithm for ranking comments, and that has had a noticeable effect. Previously it was the same as the one for ranking frontpage stories. Now it also considers among other things the average comment score of the submitter. With any luck this will keep HN poised in its usual position mid-way over the shark for another 6 months.