[splonk]

If I see a thread with too many comments from high volume posters, I assume it's low signal. Most of them are very good at commenting in a style that is convincing sounding and popular here, but when they stray into topics that I know well, I often find them to be confident, plausible, and wrong. (And also upvoted above people with correct information who don't have the same name recognition.)

[tptacek]

I'm sure that happens with me (I've noted for awhile that banal comments I write here get upvoted, presumably from a combination name recognition and people who engage with HN by following specific people --- which is how I do it too). What I'll say is if you see this happening with me, call me out on it! Refer back to this comment, if you like, when you do.

Apart from sheer volume (I have been a message board nerd since FIDONet when I was a teenager, it's second nature for me) I attribute what success I've had here to engaging principally on security topics, which is where I've spent my whole career. But I also just like to shoot the shit about stuff! I'm wrong all the time! (Including about security stuff).

[astura]

>I often find them to be confident, plausible, and wrong. (And also upvoted above people with correct information who don't have the same name recognition.)

This is basically 99% of hacker news comments in a nutshell.

[polotics]

You pass the confidence, plausibility, and accuracy challenge with flying colours!