I usually read the top comment and a few branches, then I scroll down and start reading from the bottom and upvote stuff that might have missed the cut.
I scan most comments but I usually don't read discussions that have become too long (more than 2 or 3 back and forth replies) unless they're really relevant.
Echoing GFischer and scott_karana that my own browsing habits tend to mirror theirs. It's definitely worth it, there's not really a better general tech discussion forum anywhere on the web right now.
Some discussions around technical solutions people deployed are interesting. I was recently reading an old thread about challanges with replication of postgres-xl nodes (!) :-)
If it's an article I'm interested in, I'll generally read all the comments. If I want to bring up a particular point, I'll skim them to see if it's been brought up already and then read that tree of comments and post there if I still want/need to. I pay close attention to grayed out comments when I'm reading in order to make sure they are justified and up-vote them if I don't agree with the down-votes.
I probably scan at least 50% of the comments of the stories that reach the front page. (I.e. all of the comments on the 50% of the stories that I'm reasonably interested in.)
I'm relatively good at scanning large volumes of text but it's a bit of a chore. So far I feel it's worth the effort though. The comments are usually more interesting than the linked articles.
One note: While I do think HN is reasonably effective at ranking interesting stories, the ranking of the comments do leave something to be desired. I do feel like I need to scan all of the comments - something interesting/valuable is almost about as likely to appear towards the bottom of the comments page as towards the top.
If the topic interests me I quickly browse through the comments. Quite often I find them interesting / added value. Sometimes they are also just rather white noise of the internet.
I'll check the comments if I'm interested in the topic, but aside from that I tend to avoid HN comments. The comments as a whole seem to be overly negative and contrarian...to the point where often there isn't a whole lot of value to be derived.
Negative and contrarian is the internet message board default. It still happens all the time on HN, but in my opinion there is often a prevailing attitude of constructiveness that other internet communities can't consistently emulate as well.
I have to say I adore the community here. Even though sometimes comment threads dive into slashdot level examinations of detail and occasional political mess at times, the discussions are typically quite enlightened and remind me a lot of early Internet communities. It's typically harder to find that community online due to the popularism that typically dominates mature online communities.
The discussion is a big part of HN for me. Like early reddit, you often get experts in their field, or constructive, thoughtful criticism of an article.
Jokes and other low-effort replies are thoroughly discouraged.
It's difficult to tell who is an expert in their field since it often appears that someone is an expert simply because a) nobody is able to refute them (and who knows the qualifications, at any given time, of anyone reading comments at that moment and b) they appear at least to know more than you do.
I am often amazed at the well written comments here at HN. But then again I have often no clue how correct those comments are.
That's just generally the problem when reading sufficiently advanced expert commentary outside ones field though, isn't it? Many times deep experts in the same field are themselves the only ones capable of calling bs.
I remember a thread on rocketry when spacex was going through it that was pretty much Greek to me, but folks were chatting away with one another and arguing all kinds of things I had never heard of. Great hn thread.
I like Ask HN, but I am selective about which other threads I get too deep into the comments on. Many of the discussions on here break down into quibbles over wording or minor points. Or pointless, showboating pedantry.
When I do go comment diving, I'm looking for substance. Not grammar, spelling, or minor wording or terminology back-and-forth.
Show HN is often just as insightful in my experience. Both the quality of the criticism/feedback from the HN community and the opportunity to hear directly from team members involved in the project are often exceptional.
HN has an awesome community so I generally read more. I start of with the top ones (and their branches) and agressively use the (-), and then follow down.
If it's something I'm really interested about, I check back in ~12 hours to see if something new has shown up - at which point it's a scan to see the new comments.
It varies from topic to topic so I usually check the threads. Sometimes you find great stuff. Other times you just find the prevailing groupthink. I think it's at least useful to look.
I read all comments unless the page has grown out of control. It's the articles in question that I don't bother to read - I depend on HNers to reveal what the article said. I have dead posts turned on too.
Comments are what make HN/Reddit (on certain subreddits) so valuable. It provides a means for well-educated communities to discuss topics freely and casually, and to aggregate a number of diverse opinions that would be impossible/orders of magnitude slower and more limited prior to the Internet. And the format is much more appealing than IRC channels or typical forums.
The links are only half of the equation (perhaps less, to me).
I usually write a comment, read other people's comments and then read the article. In that order ;)
Jokes aside, I actually do tend to value the content of HN comments more than the actual links. Very often, only the comments are read-worthy and not the linked articles. Sometimes, neither are read-worthy. After browsing HN for years, things tend to repeat. Yes, we know C++ templates are turing-complete. Yes, we know IoT often has terrible security. Yes, we know depression and burnout are bad. Yes, we know functional programming is super awesome. It repeats over and over.
I only skim the top comments though (and maybe their direct answers) and I only visit HN when I'm bored. Hackernews makes me restless and unproductive.
I agree with you about the perennial repetition, though of course these things are always new to somebody. What are some articles you've seen on HN recently that don't make you restless and unproductive (if there are any)?
Good question. The ones that are in my favourites, that'd be the quick answer ;)
I value posts with very high raw information content and some humour to go along with it. With information content, I mean stuff like "in C++, use virtual destructors on objects that inherit if you make use of polymorphism" but NOT stuff like "Stop Checking Email So Often" which is an actual example that is on the frontpage right now. Without having looked at the article, I can already tell that it was written by someone who is required to churn out articles even if they don't have anything to say.
I come here for the comments. The "news" I can/do get elsewhere. I tend to read the first two comments and their children and then pop to the bottom and scroll up. Not every discussion contained under a posting is gold, but there are some really good points made frequently enough that its "worth it" to me. And, now, I flip through comments on a couple of posts when I previously would have gone to smoke a cigarette, so I'm not really wasting any more time than I already was. (I do miss the stand, stretch, walk and breathe deeply part of smoking, and would make a point of doing it more often if it didn't still make me want to smoke so badly!)
Whether or not I read the comments is strongly correlated with how technical the subject is. My general process goes:
- View an interesting-sounding title in my RSS reader
- Click on the link to the HN comments
- Scan the top comments to see if the article is clickbait/insubstantial
- If it is not, read the article
- Either return to HN and read most/all of the comments or close both tabs, depending on the subject
I rarely find the comments on political links here particularly useful or informative, but I've derived a tremendous amount of value from the conversation on technical links.
Many times, I will just read the comments. Since the commenters on some of these articles can be subject matter experts, sometimes reading the comments are more informative than the actual article itself. A particular example: if the article espouses a single viewpoint, the comments will shine the spotlight on alternative ways of seeing. The more esoteric the subject matter (e.g. Higgs boson), the more interesting the comments. I think my all-time favorite commenter is grellas [1].
I often use the comments as a filter for whether or not the article is going to be worth reading, or if the discussion in the thread is enough. HN is much more useful than reddit in this regard, especially on technical articles and topics.
I always read the comments, though sometimes I dread it. For certain subjects I'll know well in advance what most of the comments will be, and they can be surprisingly ignorant and negative.
88 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 130 ms ] threadI scan most comments but I usually don't read discussions that have become too long (more than 2 or 3 back and forth replies) unless they're really relevant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_bias
I'm relatively good at scanning large volumes of text but it's a bit of a chore. So far I feel it's worth the effort though. The comments are usually more interesting than the linked articles.
One note: While I do think HN is reasonably effective at ranking interesting stories, the ranking of the comments do leave something to be desired. I do feel like I need to scan all of the comments - something interesting/valuable is almost about as likely to appear towards the bottom of the comments page as towards the top.
And this one really.
I have to say I adore the community here. Even though sometimes comment threads dive into slashdot level examinations of detail and occasional political mess at times, the discussions are typically quite enlightened and remind me a lot of early Internet communities. It's typically harder to find that community online due to the popularism that typically dominates mature online communities.
Jokes and other low-effort replies are thoroughly discouraged.
It's difficult to tell who is an expert in their field since it often appears that someone is an expert simply because a) nobody is able to refute them (and who knows the qualifications, at any given time, of anyone reading comments at that moment and b) they appear at least to know more than you do.
I am often amazed at the well written comments here at HN. But then again I have often no clue how correct those comments are.
I remember a thread on rocketry when spacex was going through it that was pretty much Greek to me, but folks were chatting away with one another and arguing all kinds of things I had never heard of. Great hn thread.
When I do go comment diving, I'm looking for substance. Not grammar, spelling, or minor wording or terminology back-and-forth.
If it's something I'm really interested about, I check back in ~12 hours to see if something new has shown up - at which point it's a scan to see the new comments.
The links are only half of the equation (perhaps less, to me).
Jokes aside, I actually do tend to value the content of HN comments more than the actual links. Very often, only the comments are read-worthy and not the linked articles. Sometimes, neither are read-worthy. After browsing HN for years, things tend to repeat. Yes, we know C++ templates are turing-complete. Yes, we know IoT often has terrible security. Yes, we know depression and burnout are bad. Yes, we know functional programming is super awesome. It repeats over and over.
I only skim the top comments though (and maybe their direct answers) and I only visit HN when I'm bored. Hackernews makes me restless and unproductive.
I value posts with very high raw information content and some humour to go along with it. With information content, I mean stuff like "in C++, use virtual destructors on objects that inherit if you make use of polymorphism" but NOT stuff like "Stop Checking Email So Often" which is an actual example that is on the frontpage right now. Without having looked at the article, I can already tell that it was written by someone who is required to churn out articles even if they don't have anything to say.
- View an interesting-sounding title in my RSS reader
- Click on the link to the HN comments
- Scan the top comments to see if the article is clickbait/insubstantial
- If it is not, read the article
- Either return to HN and read most/all of the comments or close both tabs, depending on the subject
I rarely find the comments on political links here particularly useful or informative, but I've derived a tremendous amount of value from the conversation on technical links.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=grellas
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9281466 (sprinkled throughout the comments section)
I wish there were a "favorite" feature for comments, because I'd certainly make use of it.
Note: Favorited comments and links are publicly visible.