The best HN comments

> More eyeballs are viewing the RIP Michael Jackson thread, thus resulting in more potential up-votes

That suggests an idea to take that into account, but I think PG said he'd rather not complicate the algorithm.

Edit: Huh? I'm being downvoted, which is fine, but why? I meant that there might be an interesting way to take eyeballs into account to weight a vote, but IIRC, PG wanted to see how long we could go without vote weighting.

This is because many people here still vote by agreement, rather than for comments that are interesting, insightful, contradictory, terse, and so on. This happens on a much larger scale with lower-rated comments. I once saw the word "no" with a score of 50~, which made up for the contributor's running streak of -5~. It wasn't that their contribution quality became better, it was that their comment hit that major "upvote when you agree" fault in our system. It's infuriating and seriously reduces our quality. I try to upvote even poorly composed devil's advocate comments just to counteract this, because even reckless disagreement is often a gold mine of those little bits of information that you didn't take into consideration, but should have.

Vote for what you think others should see, not for what you agree with.

It's a community attempting to define its norms. I'd rather have "this is not an appropriate post for this site" upvoted to the skies than nearly silent removals of content deemed unacceptable or a ten page "me too!" AOLgasm.

A) I totally agree

B) That list is just the top X comments by score over the past N days. It will change soon enough.

I've actually started flagging comments like that, since they're actually against the guidelines.

But it must be good since I see that same comment so often.

To correct for karma "inflation", how about:

  karma points of comment / total HN karma points at time of comment posting

In other words, rank comments as a % of total karma points at the time.

Will probably be dominated by "This is a repost; here's the original."

I'd assume it works on the same algorithm as the home page and normal comment pages. Something of the form:

points / (timeSinceEpoch^2)

After a certain time the number of points needed to override the denominator is unattainable, no matter how popular the comment was. As a result, the comments on the top of this list should be both popular and recent.

It's the latter. A comment with 30 points, say, a year ago would have been very unusual, but now that's a pretty typical score for the highest-rated comment of any link in the current top 10.

Unfortunately, this seems to coincide with HN following the same trajectory as early Reddit, and that makes me sad.

The list definitely has a cutoff.

Other lists are available at http://news.ycombinator.org/lists

This is insane, not because you're wrong, but because popularity and quality should be equivalent for us. We have some of the very best natural language processing algorithms going over most of our posts - and several comments in this post are suggesting that they're failing miserably (in many important cases, I agree).

This is a problem with the community, not with the software.

One thing I dislike about the simple arrows is that they give no indication of on what basis posts should be upvoted. If, when clicking, we were forced to select from a menu vote types [+1 insightful, +1 clever, +1 informative, +1 antigroupthink, +0 I agree, +0 funny, -1 rude or troll], even if we did not track these, this would be giving people feedback on voting expectations and force them to pause for one second to put a bit more consideration into their vote.