Just to be clear, I'm not asking for people on Twitter to vote for my stories, ever. My purpose in tweeting them has always been to notify my Twitter followers of my new content. I only noticed the effect on HN a couple days ago.
I understand why you'd want to "protect against this phenomenon", because I agree that it's probably negative in the long run, but I think something needs to be done about the new page, because a lot of good stories are being missed. People talked about this here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1720742
All that said, I'd like to hear more about your feeling on this; I'd be disappointed if you felt I was intentionally spamming HN or gaming the system to the detriment of the community.
EDIT: Oh, and one more thing: my tweets always link to the original content on my blog, not to the post on HN (or even worse, never to the submit URL on HN).
Just to be clear, I'm not asking for people to vote for my stories, ever.
Why then, when I looked at your site, did it pop up a little pseudo-window saying "Hello HN reader, if you like this I would really appreciate an upvote"?
I installed WP Greet Box, which displays different messages to different people depending on their referrer, but I didn't think it was working for HN. Maybe it's because we're on different browsers (I'm on Safari 5)?
Also, this message would only appear if you were coming from the story on HN, not from a link on Twitter, so I'm not sure it's relevant here anyway.
EDIT: Yep, I see the message now in Firefox and Chrome. Should I disable? I'm not sure I see the problem with reminding people who came to the post from HN to vote for the story if they think it's worthwhile, but what do others think?
EDIT: Yep, I see the message now in Firefox and Chrome. Should I disable? I'm not sure I see the problem with reminding people who came to the post from HN to vote for the story if they think it's worthwhile, but what do others think?
I thought it was a pretty obnoxious message, and that it should be disabled.
Honestly, I find the whole tone of this discussion pretty obnoxious. The thing that can destroy HN is when the front page stops being filled with the stories which people find most interesting and starts being filled with borderline-interesting stories from the best self-promoters.
With regard to the "if you like this story, please upvote" thing, I understand your point, which is why I asked for feedback. But as to the original topic of this blog post, I think we're on different pages. I don't see anything wrong with the fact that I tweet my blog posts to my followers and some of them happened to find it interesting and submit to HN. Should I stop using Twitter and RSS as promotional tools because it might somehow be unfair to the person who doesn't use them but writes better content? This seems akin to arguing that startups shouldn't worry about marketing and sales and self-promotion and should instead just make something awesome and then people will flock to them. I really (truly) wish the world worked that way, but it simply does not.
Honestly I think the whole idea of trying to get your own blog posts onto HN is contrary to the spirit of HN. It seems... somewhat gauche, like asking for a birthday present. If someone wants to give you an upvote or a birthday present they'll give you an upvote or a birthday present, but actively campaigning for one is socially unacceptable (unless you're under the age of, say, twelve, in which case the birthday-present case is okay).
Even submitting your own blog posts for consideration is something that I don't really consider to be kosher, and I'd never do it myself.
Yes, it's ok to submit your own stuff. If you get to the point where you've submitted 20 things and none of them got any upvotes, though, you may want to start to be more selective.
How is this different from a FB Like or a Retweet button on a blog? Or do those rub you the wrong way as well? Not trying to be snarky; I'm genuinely curious.
I, personally, am fine with those when they come after the article. However, asking me to like, upvote, retweet, subscribe to your RSS feed, or do anything indicating that I like an article before I have read it is a really, really good way to get me to close the tab and go read something else. Even more so if, as on some sites, the request appears in a pop-up thing which obscures the text of the article.
FWIW, I don't like those either. I think it adds unnecessary clutter to the web.
And: Lowering the threshold of work needed to share something reduces the average value of the things shared. It's not a big deal when you can moderate who is sharing things with you, but it's catastrophic for a communal service like HN. It is the path to funny cat pictures.
I think there's an element of game theory here though: the people putting out the HN equivalent of funny cat pictures (like angelgate or other drama) are going to self-promote, and heavily. If they weren't the type to do so, they wouldn't write content like that. So the defense should be two-fold: encourage the HN userbase to only vote up good stuff, and create good content yourself and promote it. If you don't promote your own content, it'll be overshadowed by the funny cat picture people who do. Ideally, no one would self-promote, but if the guy with crappy content does, the people who write good content should too.
Of course, this supposes that I'm not in the category of people creating funny cat picture content. And the realization that perhaps I am more than I'd like is somewhat uncomfortable. How do you know for sure?
Oh, sure. The question is how best to get those readers.
I'm one of those who do not respond well to blatant prodding for mindless promotion. I've some bookmarklets for posting things on friendfeed and HN, and use them when a site is interesting.
Maybe those buttons work well with others. But will they create the kind of audience you want? Does that even matter when you're just trying to get some initial attention?
Agreed, if anything I think submitting a pre-existing story should actually be worth more score than upvoting it. The problem lies if people give out submit links pre-loaded with the submission URL/title (if that's possible?).
But if you form a cabal to make front page of HN - whether your clique be Twitter followers or a "group of friends" on this site - it's gaming the system.
Essentially, that is what the article advocated (oh, and write interesting content - duh).
A "cabal" typically refers to a group secretly united to promote their own interests. I'm not sure that tweeting a link to a blog post meets that criteria.
You could look at the referrer for "Vote this up/submit this" URLs. If they didn't come from the story itself or from within ycombinator.com, you can simply ignore them for voting purposes and route the traffic to the comment page or to the story itself.
Let the user actually read the story, then come back to vote on it if they like.
It's probably also worth making a note when a user clicks through to a story so that later on you can verify that he's read it before counting his vote for it. (Naturally, you'd also need to note referrals from the story itself to make this work.)
Jason, just to be clear, all my tweets link to the original post on my blog, so any votes or submits from my twitter followers who clicked on the link it my tweet would come from the story itself. I'm definitely not sending out tweets with links to the HN story or to the HN submit link.
That's the only way any non-groupthink content gets to the front page, and most of the time it fails anyway because a dozen submission-upvotes were spread out over a day or two. If anything more weight should be applied to it to counteract aging.
Yes, even though my blog is incredibly lame by HN standards (or any standards, really). I imagine that people who post actual content must have to beat off recruiters with a stick.
Not meaning to toot my own horn, but just to give a testimonial for blogging: At the client I'm working for right now initial contact was at C-level. (At a software company which you've heard of.) That isn't the first time that happened, either -- if people are really interested in what you have to say, recruiters, resumes, and the HR department are not merely bypassed, they're never even thought of.
This is obvious and old hat for the more experienced corporate drones here, but it's important for all the newbies to understand that [all, but especially HR] processes and policies are made to be broken, and they are often so dysfunctional in large corporations that if someone at an appropriate level wants something done, it will be done.
(My personal experience suggests that managers and below have 0 power, and only directors+ start being able to work the informal network.)
Is it not only what you say but what you release? Are companies interested in the minimum viable products (Show HN:...) that bloggers and hackers release? I have been looking for a job for months now and I am wondering if this could be a point of entry.
I think people need to be rewarded somehow for reading and voting on stories on the new page.
If everyone has to develop a cabal to get to the front page, then over time the size of the cabals will have to grow because of the increased competition - eventually squeezing out the little guy, no matter how good his content is.
With an active userbase on the new page cabals would be less likely to form.
My take on this “secret”, in fewer words: claim personal expertise and experience and make some emphatic claim (esp. w/ an emphatic title) about a topic where people will either agree with your point from their own experience, or have some existing opinion (who doesn't have an opinion about facebook?), then make sure you get it in front of a bunch of Hacker News readers (perhaps via some other mechanism, like twitter).
The facebook gripe post wasn’t completely linkbait-y, since it provided a nice basis for a solid discussion, but by itself it was pretty light on substance. I’d personally much prefer to see gripes with more meat on them; “show, don’t tell”.
I actually agree on the post being light on substance; I was completely blown away at the level of response it got. I wouldn't have been at all surprised if it hadn't made the frontpage at all.
Ouch. I'm not really selling anything, just thought people who write for this audience might be interested in what I had found out through the process. Why does the HN crowd have such an issue with people promoting themselves even slightly? If the content is good and people like it, they'll vote it up...I don't see the problem with trying to fit your product to the HN market.
Edit: in fairness, this blog post title was too sensational, so I've changed the HN post to be less so. Unintentional, but still, my apologies.
Sorry about the negativity. I actually didn't read your post that made it to the same page for the same reason (overly sensational title).
If you look at Digg or Reddit they are essentially just bit lists of overly sensational titles.
One thing I like about HN is that we manage to mostly avoid that... and titles are generally fairly informative.
I typically only downvote/flag stories that have overly sensational titles, b/c I view them as bait for the more cursory of readers, who don't generally make thoughtful comments b/c their attention span is calibrated toward sensational, dopamine trigger words.
I've found that if a post makes it to the HN front page it's generally quality reading, so a sensational title actually provides a signal not to read it.
I'm curious why you didn't include this tactic in your "BAD" list. There's really no difference between creating a bunch of accounts on your own to upvote a story and getting a bunch of other people to do it for you. You're still artificially generating a bunch of votes for a story right at the moment of submission, therefore gaming the system.
Sure there's a difference. If you create a bunch of your own accounts to upvote a story, then all those upvotes collectively convey the following information: "One person liked this". (Worse still, that one person is the person who wrote it; so, near enough zero information.)
If you instead write something that lots of people upvote, then all those upvotes convey the following information: "Lots of people liked this."
Now, it's still bad that they "liked" it only because they know who wrote it and think he's generally interesting. The outcome for HN is probably still that what's on the front page doesn't match what's most interesting as well as everyone would like. But the problem is low-quality real information, not fake information. It's not bad in the same way at all.
I occasionally add HN links to something that I submit on Twitter, especially when I think it's something people would really like to see. I have to do this because of this exact effect, if it doesn't hit the front page, then it never takes off.
Which is cool, but it was on the home page for about 5 minutes total, because those votes came too slowly for it to hit the front page. That's all good and fine, but then today, I wake up and see this:
1. Encourage more people to monitor the "new" page, and
2. Slow down the submission of crap to the "new" page.
For instance, why is there no karma threshold for submitting new links? I just had a quick look, and there's several new links from someone trying to sell holidays to Vietnam with an account that was created eighteen minutes ago.
> 1. Encourage more people to monitor the "new" page, and
Even though I know what "new" does, I seem to interpret it as "create something new" instead of "view new submissions". Maybe I'm just an odd person but I think changing that to "newest" could make a difference if there are more people like me, especially for new users.
pg: what about allowing people to spend down their own karma to get an important post onto the front page? Sort of like Stackoverflow's bounty system. You could start with a 1:1 exchange rate and tweak it over time.
Ouch...points with no value already entice people to attempt to hoard and game the system to gain more. I don't want to think of what would happen if these points were suddenly given a tangible value.
