I don't understand why HN users always jump into these things like it's a cage fight. The right way for you to respond is to help us collectively arrive at truth (which your qualitative statement aids mildly in) and leave out all the parts that claim bad faith from your fellow users. Jesus Christ, I even included density which points the opposite way. Now because I don't have a preconceived notion of which direction I want the results to show why NZ is performing better, I can conclude that the result is either:
* The factors described are washed out by the other factors
* These factors don't have a significant impact
* It isn't any of these that determines difference in outcome between NZ and others but action taken
No wonder you guys hate social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram if you run around calling everyone insincere at the first sign of the mildest degree of disagreement.
Do you have any statistics to show the division of HN before and after posts like this? If you don't, then clearly you're wrong about this, and everything else you have ever said.
Making generalizations about HN like this without backing data to support it is unwarranted. There are plenty of diverse views, many of which do not fit nicely in the box you've constructed.
I do not disagree, and I hoped it was already visible from my initial comment. But, on average, you probably still get better results from HN crowd than from other crowds, in matters that require knowledge and logical thinking. Do you disagree?
You might well be right about this, however the OP's post is all about relating their personal experience in a way that somehow ends up painting the whole HN userbase with a very broad brush. It just does not seem very feasible to answer that in a way that's on point, without incidentally "dipping" into the same kind of attitude.
unless one can prove that there is something special about being on HN that makes a person intrinsically different than other consumers I don't think this is a reasonable conclusion. It may be that this can be proven but I would like to see the proof.
If someone posts on a crafting forum, complains about youtube being broken is the conclusion that they are not the customer that most companies are targeting?
or any number of other fora, I doubt the predictor of a single interest is enough to differentiate the person so significantly.
HN is significantly better in its particular area of focus and somewhat worse in other areas. This is basically what you'd expect from a community with a narrower focus - HN hasn't done anything wrong on that front.
If you're attempting to understand the behavior of individual users of HN as a collective, I can assure you that your initial principles are hampering you greatly.
I hope you're making those judgments on a broader set of sources than HN and its ilk. HN has smart users, but there are big sampling biases in more areas than just intelligence.
Very likely. Or at least, people on HN who answered this poll. HN is not a cross-section of American society; HN is a cross-section of hackers, coders, developers, intellectuals, and people with serious curiosity. HN polls also show a median salary approaching 6 figures, which is not normal for the US as a whole. I would not expect HN finances to look like average US finances.
We certainly have people here living paycheck to paycheck, and even some homeless, but HN is not usually a favorite site among those demographics.
The top comment says pretty much the same, except without the stupid generalization about the HN community. Just FYI, according to dang only 50% of HN users are even from the US, and only 10% in the Bay Area, so there is a fairly large contingent you are going to annoy with such generalizations.
* The factors described are washed out by the other factors
* These factors don't have a significant impact
* It isn't any of these that determines difference in outcome between NZ and others but action taken
No wonder you guys hate social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram if you run around calling everyone insincere at the first sign of the mildest degree of disagreement.
reply