That seems to be especially true on HN. Other forums there is some of that as well, but HN it seems nearly every single comment section is like 75% (random number) pointing out faults in the posted article.
Although I normally loathe pedantic assholes, I've found the ones on HN seem to be more tolerable because they typically know they'll have to back up what they're saying with facts (and ideally citations).
I've found that pedantic conversations here seem to actually have a greater potential for me to learn something from them than other forums/social platforms. On other platforms, I see someone providing a pedantic response and I'll just keep moving on, but on HN, I get curious to not only see who wins the nerd fight, but also that I might learn at least one thing along the way. I like that it's had an effect on how I engage with comment sections.
> I've found the ones on HN seem to be more tolerable because they typically know they'll have to back up what they're saying with facts (and ideally citations).
Can you back this up with data? ;-)
I see citations and links to sources about as little as on reddit around here.
The difference I see is in the top 1% comments, which exist in the first place, and are better on average (but that depends on what other forums or subreddits you compare it to, /r/AskHistorians is pretty good for serious history answers for example), but not in the rest of the comments. Also, less distractions, more staying on topic, the joke replies are punished more often and are less frequent.
That's a sampling bias. You're not seeing the opinions of every single person who has viewed an article, just the opinions of those who have bothered to comment.
People who agree with an article will most likely just upvote. Hardly anyone ever bothers to comment to offer praise, so most comments that you end up seeing are criticisms.
gaudystead|4 months ago
I've found that pedantic conversations here seem to actually have a greater potential for me to learn something from them than other forums/social platforms. On other platforms, I see someone providing a pedantic response and I'll just keep moving on, but on HN, I get curious to not only see who wins the nerd fight, but also that I might learn at least one thing along the way. I like that it's had an effect on how I engage with comment sections.
password4321|4 months ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45649771
nosianu|4 months ago
Can you back this up with data? ;-)
I see citations and links to sources about as little as on reddit around here.
The difference I see is in the top 1% comments, which exist in the first place, and are better on average (but that depends on what other forums or subreddits you compare it to, /r/AskHistorians is pretty good for serious history answers for example), but not in the rest of the comments. Also, less distractions, more staying on topic, the joke replies are punished more often and are less frequent.
bdangubic|4 months ago
- either critique is solid and I learn something
- or commenter is clueless which makes it entertaining
there is very seldom a “middle”
byryan|4 months ago
Mawr|4 months ago
People who agree with an article will most likely just upvote. Hardly anyone ever bothers to comment to offer praise, so most comments that you end up seeing are criticisms.