I'm a active lurker on HN. I read links, read comments, and digest it for my own future plans.
From my vantage, there is a constant struggle between informational content and comment debates. The very structure of HN is built to reward people who comment early and often with some degree of intelligence. That counterintuitively pushes people toward comments that can activate different bases. It's often kinda political and unsatisfactory.
Here's a proposed experiment to build a better HN:
1. Each post has to include a comment from the poster analyzing why that post is relevant to them.
2. All subsequent comments cannot directly debate the first commenter. Instead each person says what they individually see as relevant in the article.
3. People are encouraged to vote for the most engaging analysis, whether they agree or not.
From my vantage, there is a constant struggle between informational content and comment debates. The very structure of HN is built to reward people who comment early and often with some degree of intelligence. That counterintuitively pushes people toward comments that can activate different bases. It's often kinda political and unsatisfactory.
Here's a proposed experiment to build a better HN: 1. Each post has to include a comment from the poster analyzing why that post is relevant to them.
2. All subsequent comments cannot directly debate the first commenter. Instead each person says what they individually see as relevant in the article.
3. People are encouraged to vote for the most engaging analysis, whether they agree or not.
Please debate (compassionately)!