Comment by loresome | Hacker News Reader

Comment by loresome | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

When one component of the system has infinite power over the other (moderation over quantitative metrics here), you can't call that a mixture IMO.

I would suggest these three things: (1) separate the concept of "experts" and "organizers/developers". When I hear "experts" I assume "independent experts". (2) change deceiving language on the landing page. Quoting: "All you need to do is convince other participants that your project is worth doing." and "Every week other participants will give you feedback and points. The more progress you make, the higher your score will be." No mention of experts, yet alone organizers at all. (3) Make the points transparent. That includes breaking down voting vs experts vs whatever and disclosing the details of the scoring and matchmaking systems. Doesn't have to be exact spec/formula obviously, but general details.

Thanks OP! What I find curious is why we couldn't continue our existing exchange over email.

(noprocrast correctly suggested I get back to work, so made a new account.)

Well, I wrote to you (Pioneer team) multiple times over this week. I actually sent all the materials for this article yesterday.

Edit: re-read your comment more carefully. To answer: because the exchange was not productive. I only saw general comments equating to "you don't understand our opaque system" without even acknowledging the arguments I was making.

To add to my previous comment. What separates "expert voting" from "leaderboard manipulation" the most in my opinion is the access to the leaderboard state. If experts vote in isolation, based solely on the project info and reports it's a "mixture of signals". If they have unlimited power, and change the scores to shape the leaderboard to a desirable state, it's manipulation.

I agree that pioneer is super sketchy about it's exper scoring system. I think in practice it's more like peers float your app to the top of the applicant pool and then experts don't bother themselves with the ones ranked lower, so it's not as off the peers are useless. At least thats what I figured when I applied last year, and gave up when I realized that the experts were not really selecting "outsiders"

Protip : never try to hide your shortcomings. Embrace criticsm and scrutiny. If you do it right, these instances should only help you become a better team and build better products. How you respond to scrutiny pretty much gives an idea of how you handle yourself when the going gets tough, and comments such as these just don't inspire confidence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com