Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

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.



Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: