I've been working on a rubric for evaluating HN reaction to "Show HN" launch posts:
1. Universally Negative - Either it's cryptocurrency-related, or it depends on source of negativity:
A. "I read the site and I don't know what this is" - Genuinely bad explanation of an idea that doesn't seem particularly technically interesting or challenging.
B. Criticism of superficial aspects (e.g. website, related topics) - Genuinely bad explanation of an idea that DOES seem particularly technically interesting or challenging. _(Commenters don't get the message, but are worried they'll appear ignorant if they say it.)_
C. "Nobody needs this" "Why is this a thing" - Either bad or HN is nowhere near the target audience.
D. "This is not the right way to do it" "You can just do X" - Either bad or revolutionary (and new enough that the idea hasn't clicked with anyone.)
2. Polarization -
A. If positive people are REALLY positive about it - potentially a disruptive technology, potentially ahead of its time.
B. If negative people say it's actually much harder to solve - the idea is great in principle but the only reason it hasn't already been solved is it's not possible or very difficult in practice.
3. Universal Adulation - It will transparently never make any money, it is some kind of attempt at decentralization that will never get adoption beyond hardcore nerds.
1. Universally Negative - Either it's cryptocurrency-related, or it depends on source of negativity:
2. Polarization - 3. Universal Adulation - It will transparently never make any money, it is some kind of attempt at decentralization that will never get adoption beyond hardcore nerds.