Who is GlennKelman and why is he/shey only submitting redfin articles and who are redfin and why are the articles deliberately contrarian and who is upvoting them?
Glenn Kelman is the CEO of redfin, which has a very cool Google Maps-like real estate search. I haven't done business with them, but have used them as another tool during my house-buying searches.
I wager that Glenn (or someone on the redfin team) is using HackerNews as yet another place to market.
Personally, I don't mind. It's interesting reading.
Personally, I do think it's ok that a CEO is posting here, even if it is for financial gain. I feel like this site is like a tech-news link aggregator with a business spin. Having a CEO of any company is (I think) of value to the community since they can share their experiences in starting a company (it looks like Glenn Kelman was a co-founder of Plumtree as well).
In any case, if you disagree with the article (i.e., you think it's crud), then say why. Let's have the discussion. Complaining about it isn't going to get you upvotes, if that's your thing.
Take it easy. No harm, no foul.
Personally, I don't think it's ok that a CEO posts here for financial gain - I don't like that motive and I don't like in what direction it would take this site. I feel like this site is like a tech-news link aggregator with a entrepeneurial spin. I don't think it should be used by established businesses to boost traffic. Yes haveing a CEO of any company is of value to the community but only if they are here on merit, and not if they try to manipulate the community.
Like I have said again and again, it is neither here nor there if I agree or disagree with the article - the discussion I want to have is that I think this one: this guy when he submits 2 posts (written by himself on a corporate blog!) one day after another on topics that are guaranteed to cause a stir is cynically trying to boost traffic plain and simple. I don't want up-votes, I just think it speaks of the mob mentality and group-think on HN that you can't dissent or point something out like this without being down-modded.
I am taking it is. Thanks for taking so much time to respond. I hope you see my point of view. I don't see why I keep getting down-modded for it. You seem reasonable and if you say you feel this kind of thing is fine then I'll certainly take you opinion into account and I feel like you're the type of person who would extend me the same courtesy.
Phew!
Futhermore, if he didn't post it here it may or may not ever be read. Given the great discussion happening about this particular topic, I feel that would be an unfortunate loss. From these comments I have gleaned more information on marketing and the actual costs of certain types of marketing than I have in months. Thanks GlennKelman for instigating the discussion.
Yes I have realized that - it's hard not to notice that.
<<If you ever become a successful entrepreneur, and have some good information to share, are venues like HN off limits? What people like Glenn Kelman are doing is offering valuable information in return for name recognition>>
Of course they are not off limits. But my expectations are usually that the submitter is some random web-surfer. I think that if the submitter discloses that they are affiliated with or actually are the author then that's cool. By the way, I don't think "Bill Gates, My Hero" is good or valuable information. Similarly I do not find that this article contains good or valuable info, it's just zeitgeisty and filled with folksy homespun truths. In fact the two posts, posted one day after another seem designed to generate discusion for discussion's sake and feel like a cynical ploy to push traffic to the site.
<<I "purchase" their information by enjoying it and sharing it with others, which returns value for the original author. For the HN crowd, that value seems to be name recognition, which leads to people talking about whatever project you are working on. So, you give other people value (information about experience), and in return any future project you put your name on benefits.>>
I don't understand you here. We "purchase" nothing. We are being used as a commodity when someone uses the collective traffic we generate for hits or clicks. What name recognition? If I find some tech interesting I'll take note of the company or author but that's how life works. Name recognition for its own sake is meaningless.
<<Futhermore, if he didn't post it here it may or may not ever be read.>>
It would be if someone else found it valuable or interesting. That's the way these things work. I have no idea if an article by the CEO or an employee of a company gets upvoted purely because of who they are and not because of what the content of the submission is.
<<Given the great discussion happening about this particular topic, I feel that would be an unfortunate loss.>>
But as you say yourself it may have been read so there would have been no loss so no need to worry there then I guess.
<<From these comments I have gleaned more information on marketing and the actual costs of certain types of marketing than I have in months. Thanks GlennKelman for instigating the discussion.>>
That's great but that's neither here nor there in relation to my original complaint. You know I actually probably enjoy reading more or less the same stuff as you. In this case, alarm bells went off in my head - I'm sharing that sentiment with you.
In his defense, they have been two good articles so far.
He's got some really fabulous posts.
Your posts that got downvoted were the short ones without context or value to the conversation. All of your posts that actually provide something to the conversation still have positive points (at the time of posting).
clistctrl says that he is okay with a company submitting their own content and that he found this particular entry to be interesting, and thought-provoking and he get up-modded.
I in my inimitable curt way say that I am not okay with that practice (I'm not okay with it, I think posts should be submitted independently or at least with full disclosure) and I state that I don't find it to be interesting and thought-provoking and I get down-modded.
What I want to know is - why is it not okay to express a contrary opinion? Why is taking an opposite stance in this case worthy of being down-modded. If you don't agree with me you can leave my post unchanged in value. But everybody who has down-modded me is saying that you don't want to see and won't tolerate dissenting voices. I haven't been rude, I haven't spammed, I've contributed some valuable comments and opinions in the past on this site. I'll say it again: SlashDot for all its warts was never like this.