Hacker News Reader

To me, this suggests the value of professional food critics as well-known sources of... well maybe not truth, but at least honest opinion.

It's easy to fake a crowd. It's a lot harder to impersonate a well-known individual's trusted name.

View on HN

Depth (well-known individual who built their reputation over time) versus Breadth (crowd).

We seem to increasingly incentivize breadth of appeal over depth. TV Shows that appeal to the lowest common denominator, etc.

Breadth makes more money.

Depth competes on a different level. Depth works when a market becomes cheap enough to cater to (or the market is so large that a small fraction is worth it) that you get long tail economics. The benefit for the producer is less cost petition. We're almost there with television. We're almost or possible already there for some select markets for YouTube, but coming from the other direction (high production vs low production).

More accurate to say breadth tends to scale bigger, and depth allows for focus and better product/market fit in a smaller market.

I agree that professional food critics are making public their opinion, backed by their reputation. But nothing can be inferred about this opinion being honest, since it can be (and is surely often) bought.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com