It's happened to me several times where I doubt it could be simply recency bias coupled with chance of topics, due to the specificity and narrow directed-ness of the graph.
It's happened to me several times where I doubt it could be simply recency bias coupled with chance of topics, due to the specificity and narrow directed-ness of the graph.
on one hand, i feel like this is a text-book example of the Bader-Meinhoff illusion [0].
but... there's an actual causal mechanism that could drive it.
show an interesting article to the HN crowd -> some subset of HN readers are inspired to go down a wikipedia rabbit hole and post some cool thing they found back on HN -> people that saw the original interesting post will not only see the related followup post, but they'll upvote it and cause even MORE to see it
A couple weeks ago there was one about leeches:
"You shouldn't salt a leech that's sucking your blood" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45001005
"How Leeches Made Their Comeback" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45045235
"Leeches and the Legitimacy of Folk-Medicine" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45009629
"This is my brain on leeches" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45037109
(HN feature request- community calendar)
Anyway if I do that, there must be others who do so too, and probably not just a few.