That’s my case for anonymity.
Besides, these are public forums, not private emails. How does it benefit the public?
Finally, while it's a little point, HN has a pretty restrictive robots.txt file.
Discussion forums are subject to network effects where the value of the forum increases with the square of the number of commenters.
More commenters doesn't increase value.
I think my issue is more that "ugh" isn't anyone. He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion. Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability.
Anyways, good discussion. I'm still struggling with the baby/bathwater issue this has arisen, but the wife and child are waiting to be taken out to breakfast, so I must go.
=)
I’m a 22 year old social science student from Germany. I have hardly any CS background and no startup background at all. Any more details you want to know?
Which is precisely the intended effect: it makes you judge the writer by the writing.
> Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability.
So you need to know who someone is to asses the reliability of what is said? That means you know little about the subject matter, and don't intend to learn more. It's okay most of the time. We can't know everything. But if you are looking at a thread here, that's probably because you're interested in the subject. In that case, not being able to judge a comment by itself would be unacceptable.
It wouldn't be fair to judge non-native english speakers this way. However, if you are referring to what is being said, then it's not as easy as just reading what they wrote.
Indeed, the majority of people out there can't discern reality from fantasy. I did a study on this 15 years ago, where it showed conclusively that presented with factual looking information, even professionals in the various fields were unable to discern fact from fiction on specific topics. ;)
Simply put, without anything to verify this comment, you have to judge it purely on what is said. Accountability, credibility, attribute are all critical.
You did, however, seek further credibility to backup my comment, which is the entire point.
I do, however, remember reading about this at one point, and XKCD did a comic on the topic as well.
Actually, I didn't. I already trusted you about that study. I sought further information, because I was genuinely interested.
Nevertheless, I think I see your point.
It's sometimes possible to discern a poor writer from a non-native writer, but to be fair, I'll try to find out if a writer is non-native before commenting on their grammar or judging the post based on a mistake.
I disagree. The more commenters that are available, the more likely it is that one commenter will be an expert that can supply a unique perspective. This is especially important at a place like HN where there are lots of smart people who think that being smart means that they're knowledgeable about everything.
I think my issue is more that "ugh" isn't anyone. He has no background, and therefore, what he says is purely within the context of the discussion. Anything he says is questionable, because their is no accountability.
The fact that I know your name makes you no less credible in my eyes than ugh. I don't recognize your name. I don't know you. I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time by tracking you down on google and reading your resume. Everything you say is questionable. Really now, what is it about knowing your name that makes your statements any less questionable?
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. My fault. More commenters don't necessarily increase value. If that were the case, Digg would be much more valuable then HN.
I do think you are correct, in that more commenters means a greater chance of getting an expert answer, but it also increases the chance of getting poor answer. How do you determine which one to take?
> Really now, what is it about knowing your name that makes your statements any less questionable?
If the choice was between taking the advice of pg and RandomDood123 regarding startups, I'd probably take pg's. I wouldn't disregard RandomDood, but at the same time, pg's comment would gain more weight.
Well, if you're reading a thread about the BP oil rig fiasco and some guy is just repeating idiocy he heard on CNN while another guy says "I used to work for a drilling engineering company designing blowout preventers and I can tell you that the following bits are wrong because..." then I'd take the second guy. But YMMV.
If the choice was between taking the advice of pg and RandomDood123 regarding startups, I'd probably take pg's. I wouldn't disregard RandomDood, but at the same time, pg's comment would gain more weight.
How many people are there that have this degree of notoriety and actually comment on HN? I mean for you, how many are there: a dozen? A half-dozen? These people are already incentivized to write under their real name. So requiring that everyone use their real names would not really change anything regarding the dozen or so widely recognized people whose names "matter".
Moreover, discussion at HN tends to range over many topics for which pg (or any famous commenter) really isn't particularly privileged.
Finally, let's say that RandomDood123 changed his user id to match his real name, Bob Smith. Would that make you more likely to take his word over pg's? I expect not. So why on Earth should we require RandomDood123 to use his real name?
Based only on the comment? I'd want something to demonstrate he was who he said he was. Something to back up his claim. Everyone became a drilling engineer overnight with the BP disaster, it seems.
RandomDood123 doesn't have to change his name, either. But something that relates back to who he is. I do check a person's comments for HN, and I generally try to find out who a person is before responding, or taking their advice. If RandomDood123 ran an iPhone App startup, then his advice in that arena would be worth considering.
> Would that make you more likely to take his word over pg's?
It really depends on the subject. If I didn't know RandomDood, then yes. If, however, RandomDood had a blog, and some other information that lead me to believe he was in a specific industry, I'd be more likely to listen to what he has to say.
Personally, I don't usually read usernames until after I've read the post, if at all. I'd greatly prefer to evaluate posts based on their relevance, accuracy, and tone. Some posters, like grellas, have a unique style that is instantly recognizable half way through the post, so knowing the username isn't necessary anyway. Other times I've been surprised by the gender, nationality, or occupation of a commenter, and if I'd known that information beforehand, I don't think I would've got as much value from reading their posts.
Maybe this is a case of the baby/bath water problem. Would comments improve if accountability is improved? Would overall comments/discussion improve?
I really don’t know whether quality in general would improve. It might but you might also lose many valuable contributors in the process.
I certainly have no problems with communities in which you have to use your real name. It’s a valid path to take, I just would much prefer to keep on commenting here anonymously. But a change of that policy wouldn’t be the end of the world. I would just abandon my old account, register a new one and probably comment a lot less and differently.
If comments weren't anonymous then these folks probably wouldn't make their comments at all. So I think you get a more honest discussion if it's anonymous, at least for some topics.
It's the 21st century. Yeah, a lot of my life is on the internet and relatively easy to find. It's almost like having a free, instant private investigator for all of your potential employees. But do you really want to work for a place that not only sets a PI on you, they put weight in what he reports when they know it might not be totally accurate?
For people who do need a job a bit more than I do, that is a concern — and I wouldn't advocate against pseudonymity because life is not always nice and simple.
That's why I am very careful about my identity online. I have no problems with finding jobs right now, but who knows where I'll be in 10 years?
(That, and I think I have a pretty foolproof plan B for when everything breaks that I would be reasonably OK with executing.)
----
As an aside: I'm not big on meta posts, but would you guys stop downvoting jasonlotito, please!!! Whether or not you agree with him, he is asking intelligent questions and is furthering the discussion. Your downvotes are actually inhibiting the process.
You might say that if everyone was identifiable then it wouldn't happen, but how would be verify the identities? Someone could take exception, then track you down off-line.
Call it irrational, but that's my personal experience. On in exceptional circumstances would I post under my real name again. Being on HN is good, but not good enough.
Finally, the source code is available, I'd be interested to see someone enhance it to require real, verifiable names and see how popular it becomes.