Ask HN: Which usernames do you recognise?
In the light of the current experiment of not showing comment ratings there's been a lot of (good) discussion about what criteria people use to vote. One thing that came up was giving a positive bias to usernames you recognize for their previous insightful comments or their expertise on a certain subject.
So the question is: Which usernames do you recognise, and why?
62 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 117 ms ] threadI tend comment on HN without consideration for usernames.
I remember a few name Gruesome, mechanical_fish ... but I'd recognize more if saw them in context.
But I don't a moderate in the basis of names I know anyway...
It seems like this experiment will make people in general less likely to moderate. I used to moderate highly rated posts on opinion and less highly rated posts on quality. I now moderate everything on opinion but I suspect others are more self-censored - my guess comes because I haven't had any up or down moderations recently...
Nonetheless, I was just making the point that it's not just about positive bias, which is what many people seem to dwell on.
I subscribe to a few comment feeds via searchyc so that I can read most of the comments from my favorites around here.
I ask only because if this experiment becomes permanent its good public knowledge.
EDIT: I meant to include my thoughts on the change. If this change was made with the mindset that "friends" will automatically vote eachother up I think its probably a mistake. My reasoning here is that the voting up will still occur regardless of the value shown or not, if anything it might promote people to vote someone they like up just to contribute to the magical score thats hidden away. If they were to see that the person already has 10 votes its possible they might feel that was enough value already assigned to the comment.
That said, here's who I can recall off the top of my head:
YCombinator principals: pg, rtm, jl, tlb
Famous people: joshu, pmarca, paul, jeresig
Semi-famous people: aboodman, tptacek, cperciva, lisper, jrockway, ojbyrne, epi0Bauqu
YCombinator founders: sama, dhouston, ivankirigin, tipjoy, spez, aaronsw, mattmaroon, AlexS, SwellJoe, brezina, fallentimes, brett (at least, I think it's that Brett...the SlinkSet founder)
YCombinator company employees I've hung out with or otherwise interacted with: aston, dfranke, gaborcsalle
Folks I've met in person since moving to the Bay Area: lacker, litewulf, iamelgringo, abossy, timcederman, gaius
Prolific posters: nickb, rms, wheels, davidw, mechanical_fish, DanielBMarkham, edw519, swombat, patio11, raganwald, pchristensen, staunch, byrneseyeview, llimllib, ryanwaggoner, Alex3917, menloparkbum, DaniFong, dcurtis, unalone, masklinn, apotheon, plinkplonk, mynameishere.
(Yeah, I cheated and looked at the leaderboard and a few comment threads for that last one. The original question was recognition, not recall though.)
Also completely forgot tonywright, who's also a YC founder and someone whose posts I enjoy reading a lot.
MRI would be hugely expensive and probably totally inconclusive really.
So on the whole it seems like I notice on part expertise part random. I don't vote much though so I don't think name alone gets me to click that up arrow.
Anecdotally, if I find myself particularly interested in what someone says I'll visit their profile to learn more about them.
tdavis, because he was memorable on IRC.
patio11, because Jesus that guy posts like an inferno.
jrockway, who I think I've argued with more than anybody save amichail, who I also recognize.
edw519, because duh.
Probably some other people.
Interesting question.
I have a great deal of respect for many people here (too many to mention), but oddly, I don't think that has much influence on how I feel about new posts. Every thread is fresh and every day we start over. So no matter how insightful you've been in the past, you just gotta keep doing it. I suppose that's the way it should be.
I, too, recognize and respect many people here. I would not dare to list them all, just as I would not dare to try and publicly list all my friends. That way lies nothing but inadvertent slights and endless apologies.
And I think knowing a bit about a writer's background is almost always of value to me.
But that doesn't mean I upvote posts on that basis. Upvoting is an editorial function. You don't do it for yourself. You do it for other people. And so the quality of each piece of writing must stand and fall on its own.
You have to learn to think like this to write effectively. You have to try to look dispassionately at the writing of people you like and admire. Because, alas, there is nothing more dear to you than your own prose. William Faulkner said: "In writing, you must kill all your darlings." You will write a lot of stuff that looks good to you, but that just doesn't fit. You will write stuff that starts out sensible and then turns on itself. You will write things that are just too delicate to say on the web. And you will make boneheaded mistakes. The art of writing is not so much to avoid doing these things, but to catch yourself in the act and edit them, as consistently as you can, and hopefully without hurting your own feelings too much.
Next time I'll try to remember to use Wikiquote, to obtain the definitive wrong attribution.
but it seems there are groups of people here that know and hang out with each other and act as a herd on the site - upvoting their own and downvoting any outsider.
The unavoidable state of mind with which I will read a comment from 'cperciva' or 'tptacek' (whom I recognize, along with pg, edw512, jacquesm and a few others) is: 'this is likely to be a comment from a security point of view and I'm likely to consider it a high quality answer'. I don't understand in what way that would pose a problem, unless you suppose that causes one to immediately lose the capacity to critically evaluate the content of the comment and conclude 'hmmm, a disappointing comment'. I think that risk is larger when I would assume that I could ignore the name and would hence be influenced by subconscious processes whose existence I tried to deny.
For each submission's threads, a user would be assigned a new temporary (but stable) handle. Only later -- a few days, or when the article has dropped out of the top ~60 -- would these revert to the permanent names.
Variants: let a submitter opt a submission's threads into this system -- perhaps permanently for that item, or for the period of initial discussion/rating. Or, let a member in good standing adopt such a 'mask' for the duration of one item's discussion.
Making some kind of temporary "masks" is too much PIA IMHO.
-pg - Because he's PG
-edw517, mechanical_fish - Due to frequent sighting of their comments
-tokenadult - You'll always find him in threads that contain discussions about human intelligence/alternative education
-potatolicious - U.S. immigration discussions + Canada vs. USA issues
-markbao - Entrepreneur, 16 years old
-mahmud - A technology nomad (originally from the Washington DC Metro, now in Australia)
These are the ones I can recall from top of my head. I do recognize many other usernames, of course. Also, I would like to point out I have no inclination to upvote the individuals mentioned above. I think it's more about frequency, since most of them tend to partake in discussions that cover a wide range of topics.
Just because they're experts in one area doesn't mean I'll find their opinions insightful no matter what. Each posting/comment is taken into consideration.