More problematic seems that people are submitting stories to get karma rather than because they think they're interesting. That seems a dangerous trend. Perhaps the solution would be to nullify karma gains on such "obvious" sites.
However, what would suit me more would be if things were adjusted inversely to their PageRank -- meaning less stories from CNN, New York Times, BBC and so on, but things that are a little further out would be ranked better.
Irony? We've heard of it :-)
I'm perplexed -- a top ten karma person posting that having high karma is a sign you spend too much time on the site. Do I upvote that? Sets off a recursion alert.
As for "does karma matter" -- if it didn't matter, we wouldn't have it, sandwich or no. Study after study has shown that if you give people arbitrary rewards, they'll work to gain them. Perhaps there is a lesson in there for startups, no?
Either that, or, yeah, introducing 'real world rewards' for it;-)
Right. But the concept is used to reward people for wishful behaviour on this site.
> More problematic seems that people are submitting stories to get karma rather than because they think they're interesting.
That's exactly the problem I would like to tackle with my proposition.
Personally, I'm not as bothered about karma on here as I am on other communities - I'm much more of a reader than a contributor - and I agree with your comment on finding "unknown writers". The more obscure articles are what I use HN for at the end of the day.
If you really want to deal with the "karma problem", then make submissions from those sources karma-free - i.e. they don't influence the submitter's karma. But since I don't think that there is actually a "karma problem", I think this is a non-issue and not worth dealing with.
I am guilty (if that's the word) of posting the odd Seth Godin item but I am pretty selective about the ones I post. From time to time Seth's blogs can sound like they came out of a fortune cookie and then along comes an absolute corker with direct relevance to HN. Blindly posting them all would just add to the (rapidly growing) stream of new stories that are not going to get any up-votes - adding yet more noise and making the signal just that little bit weaker.
* Look at all the posts from site X in the past, say, 3 months.
* See how many have been posted to HN
* See how many of those got votes.
If the percentage is small, then adding the site automatically would generate noise. If, on the other hand, the site is paulgraham.com, they all get submitted and they all get tons of votes, so it would make sense to automate it.
Pretty much everything from certain sites gets submitted anyway, so it ends up being votes that determine what is of interest.
For me, I like articles from joe the blogger, since I'm that guy. If I wanted Seth, 37Signals, or some such I'd just subscribe to their site (which I don't). I get the same signal-noise ratio from them as from the average blog post that has been upvoted several times. Perhaps better.
I could, in theory, not subscribe to those blogs but I don't know if everything is going to get submitted to HN.