Show Total User Karma in Hacker News Posts
kishanbagaria.com
kishanbagaria.com
I typically only look at the username when a commenter uses a personal pronoun and the submission involves a major company/organization/person; here's one in which karma score wouldn't have indicated as being particularly noteworthy [2]. It'd be kind of cool to see a plugin that used NLP to highlight these kinds of comments but I find that they are already "highlighted" by upvote count anyway.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13971627
Unfortunately, it's the latter behavior that nets more karma, more often than not. Those with high karma tend to be those who post or comment more, separating the frequent contributors from the lurkers.
If you intend to use this userscript, please do so knowing that the numbers you're looking at have little (if any) correlation with the quality of their corresponding comments. And reconsider. Thank you.
I also notice people getting upset over down votes once in a while. High karma users definitely command a certain respect.
All in all, I like how HN down votes comments from even high karma users if it's out of touch with the topic or is a meaningless vent. Hope that continues.
`More information != Better` is evident in contemporary web design, not just the seemingly retro-because-why-change aesthetic of HN (I say "seemingly" because I don't think HN's design motivation is out of curmudgeonly inertia). Look at the single-column experiences of Facebook and Medium versus what existed in the early 2000. Hell, look at the latest startup unicorn, Snap, in which information is mostly vertical photos and videos, and in which it is impossible to even review a history of past content.
The entire premise of data visualization is to simplify information. I'd argue that data, in general, is predicated of simplifying the world. Think of how many times you've read a survey or poll or study and thought that it was wrong because you, personally, aren't anything like those in your age group. Or, if you've ever applied to college or a job, how your GPA/SAT/ACT score, or previous salary, doesn't reflect the depth of your knowledge.
The benefits of reducing information seems to also be inherent in our current biological state. The vast majority of what the human eye can see, in terms of total area, is relatively low resolution (i.e peripheral vision). The psychological tendency to rely on first impressions has been posited to have positive implications for survival. The perceived spottiness in human memory is also thought to be not just a physical limitation, but actual feature: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/29/opinion/la-oe-bar-me...
----
On a sidenote, I'll admit to paying attention when I'm downvoted. But that's a reflection of how rarely I get downvoted and how little I downvote other people. And I think that in itself is a reflection of HN's moderation and decorum (don't use downvotes just because you disagree). OTOH, I don't get angry. When I get downvoted on HN. I have a general faith that it was because I screwed up -- e.g. I'm not as funny/witty as I think I am, or I was unnecessarily rude to someone else. And generally, that's the case and I've felt that that feedback has made me a more considerate writer over time.
Karma on HN and my fear of getting downvotes has had a chilling effect on my willingness to post humorous remarks.
This is probably a good thing.
In a way it is. On the other hand I found the original Yahoo page with just about 100 blue links very readable and navigable.
I wonder if the art of speed reading has been lost. Navigating the web for me was much faster around 2000 than it is now. Too many sites have proprietary and byzantine procedures of interacting with them (example: click on a button before being able to enter something in a web form).
There's certain users that (often due to them being experts in a certain area) very often post interesting comments that I learn a lot from. I mainly find them by occasionally reading their comment history, but it would be nice to see them while the discussion is still ongoing.
A few examples: pcwalton, patio11, jblow, WalterBright
var likedUsers = ['pcwalton', 'patio11', 'jblow', 'WalterBright'];
var users = document.getElementsByClassName("hnuser");
for (var i = 0; i < users.length; i++) {
if (likedUsers.indexOf(users[i].innerHTML) != -1) {
users[i].setAttribute("style", "font-weight: bold;"); //Or whatever
}
} document.documentElement.innerHTML =
document.documentElement.innerHTML.replace(
new RegExp('(?:' + ['pcwalton', 'patio11', 'jblow', 'WalterBright'].join('|') + ')', 'g'),
'<B>$&</B>'
);
DHTML!While having inter-personal vendettas is probably bad for forum culture, it at least facilitates some kind of inter-personal relationships.
It's nice to judge each comment on its own merits, but it's also fun and interesting to recognise someone as a peer whose comments you liked -- or disliked! -- before.
It's also orthogonal to the karma system. I already have a personal (if completely one sided) relationship to a few prominent hacker news users. But outside of that circle of maybe 5 to 10 people, posts might as well be anonymous. Annotating other users makes it easier to expand this sphere beyond hacker news royalty.
The problem is that karma score combines points for submissions and comments. Those are very different activities to combine into a single mathematical scale. (Yes, I know that's also how other sites like Reddit works and a single score is "simple".)
Upvotes for submissions is saying something about the userid's curation and/or the type of topic. Some topics are "hot button" and attract upvotes even though the actual writing within the article/blog is substandard.
Upvotes for comments is saying something about userid's generative mind. His/her brain has an opinion and the fingers type it out.
As an analogy, karma combines upvotes for how a disc-jockey selects (curates) music with the upvotes for how a musician performs live music. This doesn't invalidate the DJ's effort but combining the scores means we lose more information than we gain.
I suppose the higher level abstraction we can use to justify a "composite" score of 2 very different activities is the concept of "participation score". In that way, karma==participation. In that case, does showing a participation# add useful information to the posts?
Reddit separates the two types of karma.
function getKarma(userName) {
get('https://hacker-news.firebaseio.com/v0/user/' + userName + '/karma.json', function(karma) {
appendKarma(userName, karma);
});
}Put a metric and even self aware people get influenced by it.
I've updated the title to clarify, but if a mod can think of a better version, feel free.
Show HN Karma: Userscript that shows total karma after user names.
I had the same issue on Reddit and with the Github streak counter. My brain stays focus on the number, even if I don't want to.
The last was the most useful.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8264220
> It's based on comment scores only. My sense is that it's an irrelevant distraction and we should get rid of it. For example, we caught a bunch of users who were gaming it by deleting any comments that brought their average down. We fixed that by treating deleted comments as comments of score 0 for average-computing purposes. It's an example of how, once you publish a metric, people start to care about it and do things based on it, regardless of how meaningful it is. Comment average used to be used by a few algorithms (like comment ranking) but we turned that off as an experiment a while ago and nothing seemed to get worse. If anything, I think it may have helped a little.
Rationale: I've occasionally made a polarising remark that appears to attract almost as many downvotes as upvotes. These remarks end up with maybe +3 karma after 24h of jiggling vigorously up & down but this doesn't represent the total number of votes.
With any aggregate measure, the distribution of values summarized may be as revealing as the value itself.
Something like HMAC(username, story_id) would work for this. It's be consistent on a given page, but not immediately apparent so people would either judge comments more on their quality or simply click the user more to see who it is. I'm curious to see which it'd be.
The only thing I'd like, as others have said is my own ability to highlight the names of users I think are interesting (to me) - much in the same way new users are green, maybe have my own personal list of users who are in, say, red.