Top domains on HN by average score (warning: check comments first)(spreadsheets.google.com)
spreadsheets.google.com
Top domains on HN by average score (warning: check comments first)
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rC4oeGjG_04iG63oBJvy2xw&output=html
15 comments
If you would rather not have your Google account revealed to all of HN, log out of Google before following the link.
Yeah, um, or click here instead: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rC4oeGjG_04iG63oBJvy2...
Sorry 'bout that, was my first time publically sharing a Google spreadsheet. If an editor could update the link, it would be much appreciated!
Edit: PS: Could you remove the warning from the title, also, please?
Sorry 'bout that, was my first time publically sharing a Google spreadsheet. If an editor could update the link, it would be much appreciated!
Edit: PS: Could you remove the warning from the title, also, please?
Can someone explain why? I assume the link got changed a long time ago by now.
At first, when you viewed the spreadsheet, you saw a richer interface that:
(1) popped a little message when others started viewing, with their logged-in Google username
(2) offered an expandable chat sidebar
(3) showed each others' active selection-area via different selection colors (correlated with colors in the char sidebar)
The warning was fair but it was actually kind of interesting. I think the best case mixing fairness-of-disclosure and options-to-viewers would be a link to the static doc, but another link on the static doc allowing upgrade to the interactive interface (perhaps with a hint of what you'll see and reveal if doing so).
Dug up from my browser history, this was the original link, which reveals your logged-in Google username to other simultaneous document viewers:
!!! http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=rC4oeGjG_04iG63oBJvy2...
(1) popped a little message when others started viewing, with their logged-in Google username
(2) offered an expandable chat sidebar
(3) showed each others' active selection-area via different selection colors (correlated with colors in the char sidebar)
The warning was fair but it was actually kind of interesting. I think the best case mixing fairness-of-disclosure and options-to-viewers would be a link to the static doc, but another link on the static doc allowing upgrade to the interactive interface (perhaps with a hint of what you'll see and reveal if doing so).
Dug up from my browser history, this was the original link, which reveals your logged-in Google username to other simultaneous document viewers:
!!! http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=rC4oeGjG_04iG63oBJvy2...
Seriously. That's annoying.
I don't know who I was following around but it was fun just clicking under your cell selection =)
Sites based on the real name of their primary writer are very strong: graham, sivers, yegge, shaw, buchheit, maroon, joel, aaron, pmarca, ejohn, godin. (A message about authenticity, voice, and personal brands?)
Other sites known as the outlet of a single author also do well: catonmat, daringfireball, raganwald, blogmaverick, avc.
Other sites known as the outlet of a single author also do well: catonmat, daringfireball, raganwald, blogmaverick, avc.
While I have no evidence to support this, I would guess this has to do with the editing process. Comparing this list to http://top.searchyc.com/domains, you see a lot of similar results. The difference is that some of them have quite a lot of results (Techcrunch, Wired), but not nearly as high of a average score.
In fact, it looks like the sites hitting the top of the list for average score are ones that are written by a single author, who has several strong opinions (ZedShaw is a good example). Since Hacker News doesn't allow down voting, it seems that by draw up a commotion, and getting people interested in a semi-controversial idea is what wins votes here.
In fact, it looks like the sites hitting the top of the list for average score are ones that are written by a single author, who has several strong opinions (ZedShaw is a good example). Since Hacker News doesn't allow down voting, it seems that by draw up a commotion, and getting people interested in a semi-controversial idea is what wins votes here.
Not surprising really. Anyone blogging under their own name (whether in the URL, or where it's blatantly obvious like Cuban or Fred Wilson) is going to put at least a little more thought into what they post. People blogging for reasons other than selling ads are going to be direct and filter out more of the "crap".
For better reading:
(remove-duplicates Top_news.YC_submissions :key #'first :test #'string=)
From the charts I see TechCrunch.com is the domain with highest number of posts and points as well.
[deleted]
Has anyone done something like this, but grouping by (user, domain), and maybe ordering on something like (number of user submissions / number of user submissions for this domain)?
What do you guys make of this list? Love to hear your analysis.
I'd like to blacklist about half of these domains. Some people might find Techcrunch, *.blogspot.com, AppleInsider, et al worthwhile, but I just don't care for them.
blacklisting *.blogspot.com would really be pushing it.
There seems to be some duplication further down in the list--rows fully identical are repeated.
[deleted]
Holy crap, 95 of my articles have been submitted here? I would not have guessed that.
What's the time frame on this?
Got the data from here: http://top.searchyc.com/domains_by_points
So I think the entire history of the site is included.
So I think the entire history of the site is included.
What are the differences between this and the searchyc page?
seems to be a lot of duplicates on that list
ii(1)