[benihana]

>It makes me a little disappointed in the community and thinking that perhaps I should be hanging out somewhere else instead.

Please go. Please go find that perfect place where you can hang out with people who are as smart and thoughtful as you and think exactly like you do, and only upvote the correct things that you agree with. It'll be better for us all.

[cpncrunch]

I would if I could find it, but I've been thinking I might need to create it myself. You make it sound like it's just my opinion. That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm saying that I would prefer if people upvoted good science rather than spammy press releases. Is that too much to ask?

[dang]

That probably is too much to ask for stories in fields where the community has a low density of specialists. Excessive claims about, say, computing are less likely to be entertained here, simply because HN has lots of users who know about computing.

We see the same thing with big news stories: often a sensational splash with tons of upvotes and comments is followed a few days later by a follow-up showing how the original story was wrong, but going largely un-noticed.

I don't think it's too much to ask, though, for substantive articles reporting debunkings and refutations to get their share of attention. We just emailed you a repost invite for the one on deep brain stimulation, and I hope you'll continue to post those as you find them. It is a valuable service to the community.

Btw, any time you (or anyone) know of a particularly good article that fell through the cracks, you should email us at [e-mail] so we can send a repost invite or put it in the second-chance pool. Some of the most interesting and popular links that have appeared on HN recently have been rescued from oblivion this way, so there's evidence that it works. We'll probably eventually add a feature to HN for people to nominate stories for a second chance this way.

[philh]

This particular submission is not a spammy press release. It's an actual paper published in an actual journal. Your refutation is another paper which found contradictory results - that doesn't mean this paper is bad science, even if it's wrong.

[tptacek]

You've been on HN long enough to know comments like this are out of bounds here.