Ask HN: Do you read articles on HN before reading/writing comments?

I almost always read the top comment (and possibly some of the follow-ups) before reading the article. I rarely comment as I rarely feel like it's worth it (in other words, I don't think my comments could improve the discussion, what with HN being a pretty "elite" community).

I usually start with the comments. So many sites are dumpster fires of ads and/or trivial observations stretched out into blog-length essays. I want to know if the article will be worth my time/hassle before clicking through.

If I'm replying to a comment that isn't directly about the article, I may not read the article first. If I'm making a comment about the article, I read it carefully. But I don't often comment about the article. :-)

I almost always read the comments first, to gauge whether the subject matter interests me.

I'll always read the article first before contributing comments, unless I see a comment sub thread on an unrelated matter that I might have experience in.

This should have been a poll.

I didn't even read your text and just reply to the question in the title. So: no.

No. I go the the comment section first and then decide if the article is read-worthy.

Regardless of everything, I always start by clicking the comments link on front page, and I end up reading either the comments or comments + article.

Often I read the comments first. Sometimes you can glance over the comments and if all the comments say "it's not like this" I will probably skip the article.

Also there's surprisingly huge amount of knowledge and anecdotes in the comments, and often they have higher information density.

Unfortunately each day I click 3x more links on HN than I have time to read through, so I don't always end up reading the article (which ends up in an ever-growing to-read list)

For better or worse, I am here for the comments.

Well, I assume that since the comments typically seem to be related to the article, someone must be reading all these articles. Then again, how would I know that?

If I have only 30 seconds to get the gist, I can usually get more signal from 30 seconds of reading comments than from the article. Most articles have too much fluff and filler and do not summarize properly in the first few sentences.

Nope. Sometimes after

If I comment, I usually at least glance at the article to get a general idea. Most of the I can tell where it is going by skimming it for less than 30 seconds (there's only so much novel information). Many times authors use way too many words so it's rare to read it completely unless it's short or very information dense. However if I'm replying to a comment, I usually do not read the article.

I read interesting articles and skip marketing bs masquerading as insightful wisdom. Some threads turn out to be more off topic, if enough of first commenters discuss issues unrelated to the article it is likely to attract more people that jump into discussion without reading the article - nothing wrong with that.

It depends.

I'm a dilettante for some things, so no: my opinions outrank anything else. I'm whoring for attention and should have been on reddit this time.

I'm a student of others: I read to learn and comment to try and test my understanding, usually with an experimental reference to ground things.

I'm a player in a third case: I have a view, I know the primary author or know them indirectly, I (arrogantly, mistakenly) assert a view of my own.

I almost exclusively read the articles and skip the comments.

I often find I've already read the article before I see it linked on HN, and its appearance on HN confirms that like-minded people also found it interesting, which is nice.

There are usually about 1-3 articles on the first page that I've read before seeing them on HN.

I only read HN for the articles :)

Seriously though, I click on the comments link first and then go straight to the article unless the top few comments say don't bother. But I always read the article before commenting. Hate it when people make comments that show they haven't read the article.

I usually start with the comments. As someone else said, many sites are dumpster fires, whether it's ads, JS bloat, or just poor design, and the comments often have an alternative link for the content.

I wish HN worked had a different workflow. I like to browse the comments first to see if the content being linked is worth my while. I would have the title link directly to the comments page. If you want to read the article you can access it from there.

I always have to "micro-click" on the comments link from main pages because I never read the articles first. "Micro-click" because that's what that link looks like on a phone. I either have to zoom and then click or carefully hope my finger (5x to 10x the vertical size of the comment link on a phone) clicks the correct link.

If I can, I'll read the article... unless it's paywalled (ugh, Medium, NYT, Bloomberg) and the other comments (not always in that order) before commenting.

I try not to just post hot-takes, sometimes I let emotions get the better of me.

If it's a security disaster of the day... I'll do my standard reminder that it doesn't have to be this way, a clue about capability based security, and keep it all in one comment/reply. Sometimes others agree with me, like its obvious, which gives me hope... other times... no hope.

Then I watch the threads, reply in the tree, because that's how I learn when it turns out I was wrong.

> is it not also possible that people are commenting without opening the article

Title: "Why are so many athletics records falling?"

Byline in the article answers it: Shoes.

The free section says this is for track athletics.

In the comments there's a link to the full article without paywall - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26406977

42/100 of comments atm don't seem to know the article answers the title with shoes.

Most of the time I read the comments first because there is a good discussion and this is a nice indicator of whether the article is worth reading or not.

I think it depends on the Subject. For things that you know a lot, most articles doesn't go deep enough into any issues that you wont already know. For others that caught your attention and you have little to no knowledge on it. I read the article first and then read comments to see if it has answer to question I have.

And most of the time, comments on HN is the interesting part. You have people sharing stories on related subject and history 10-20 years ago on how it all started. Why was something being done , and add a lot more context.

If it’s a re-hashed hot take, I just skip to the comments.