You need to understand how HN works. Whenever someone submits a link that was already submitted, the submitted link gets a point.

So the techcrunch article would get more upvotes, as more people would be submitting it, compared to some random slideshare page.

And since the techcrunch article would get more upvotes in a short period of time, it'll end up on the front page quickly, which will in turn get that submission more upvotes.

I usually read the comments first and only read the article if the comments are good. I look at domain when their are no comments and the title seems linkbaity.

I'm sorry, but [scribd] == I will not click.

same. I seem to be one of a small number of people who completely fail to see the purpose of scribd beyond forcing me to view pdfs in a clumsy flash based reader and making them non-downloadable.

I'm also a definite no for Techcrunch

I agree re:scribd.

For Windows users, it's trading one bloated reader for another. For OS X and Linux users, it's trading a reasonable decent reader (Preview.app and Evince/etc. respectively) for a bloated reader...

If scribd had a download link, though, I might not mind it as much... Bonus points if they registered a cookie on my machine that, when seen, automatically sent me the downloaded file for the link I clicked on.

I do read TechCrunch though.

Why? The link is to the original pdf, and the [scribd] tag is to the scribd vacuum link, so you can click on whichever you choose.

They're both bad choices for reading online.

You know the techcrunch link will include context, slides can often be difficult to interpret by themselves and won't attempt to understand the big picture.

Yes. I tend to avoid links that point to mattmaroon.com

Although I may read the comments, I ignore all (youtube.com) postings.

For me, the title is all that matters when the article is strictly about programming. If it's some sort of Top X list, TechCrunch or CNet almost always have the best ones, but you'll definitely have a hard time finding actual programming-related articles. In fact, I have more fun reading through the comments here on HN and the given blog/website than the actual articles themselves; I would not be able to count the amount of times a bug with a piece of code was fixed thanks to a guy writing a comment on the blogs.

I have my own personal blacklist and will usually click on the hn comments first for those if the title seems interesting.

There are also some domains on which I am more likely to click.

Yes. I tend not to click what I know to be a spammier, ad-filled, subscription-based domain. Otherwise, I think it's unfortunate that techcrunch, and the like, often win the popularity contest of domain names -- Google or http://gigablast.com/ ? Google may have more upvotes, but bring on the underdogs.

The username is all that matters :)

I almost always don't read anything from TechCrunch, Coding Horror, SlideShare and anything that is hard-linked to Scribd (although I don't think that has happened since the [scribd] link started that I can remember).

On the other side, there are a few blogs that I am not subscribed to that will be almost a guaranteed click on HN if I notice it.

I picked the second option on the poll, because there is too much going on in my decision in clicking a link: what is currently happening in the news/tech world, whether I feel like reading a technical or mainstream article, etc. etc. for the domain to be the sole reason.

I wish the domain showed up in the RSS feed...

Some domains contain very little information, e.g. tumblr.com hosts hundreds of thousands of blogs on sub domains not shown.

Yep. I used to read any HN post from Posterous, because most of those early ones were from the actual Posterous founders and I was interested in what they had to say. Most of the more recent "Posterous.com" links are just from people with Posterous blogs, so I've stopped reading them unless the title is very compelling. Too many were a waste of time. I wish people posted their blog's sub-domain information when they post on HN so that readers could make a more informed decision about whether or not to click through...

A lesson in the power of brands and reputation. We like to think that we are above marketing, reputation, and stereotypes, but at the end of the day something from "techcrunch.com" or "stanford.edu" will almost always attract more eyeballs and respect than joeschmoe.com for the same piece of content.

I think it's a mistake to conflate marketing, reputation, and stereotypes. I don't have an unlimited amount of time to spend reading articles. Reputation is one indicator that I use in determining which articles to spend that time on.

Reputation and brand is a product of good marketing.

That's partly true, but the idealist in me also hopes it's the product of consistently high quality.

Regardless, I think the association with "stereotypes" was what bothered me, along with the implication that people with high intellectual standards will ignore such things.

For me, the title is all that matters, as I read from the RSS feed and never actually see the URL unless I take the time to hover over the link and investigate.

There are certain places I won't go, not because I don't think it's safe. A few of the linked sites always have articles that end up being tl;dr.

I read it through RSS so I don't see the domain

Noscript on Firefox = fairly safe browsing.

I would have liked to see this choice:

The title is the overwhelming factor, but the domain sometimes influences my decision.

Always.