It's not unusual, HN's front page ranking algorithm is heavily biased towards new submissions.
Makes sense. It's just that #4 position with 6 upvotes is the most extreme ratio I've seen yet. When I said that it seemed impossible without manipulation (on a post now flagged), I did not mean that manipulation was happening, just that this seemed unusual.
You didn’t mean it was happening, but saying that it’s “almost impossible” that it isn’t happening doesn’t come across as moderate as you might have intended.
Exactly.
That's why I said that it seems almost impossible... but that's not very clear or moderate over text, my bad.
It's currently 14 votes and 31 minutes old (and fallen to spot 5). So 6 and call it what, 15±5? Neither is at all unusual. Being quickly voted on is worth more (in terms of the ranking) than the same handful of votes over hours or days.
Do you ask the same questions when the same thing happens with pro-Ivermectin articles?
I'm not talking about the content of the article at all. I'm just talking meta about how that seems impossible. #4 position with 6 upvotes seems impossible, but maybe I'm wrong and somehow it's was just the most disproportionate upvote-rank ratio I've seen yet.
For those downvoting, it's not the article. Can one not question the meta aspects about an article's ranking for clarification? I did not mean to imply any foul play.
I've looked at the data; it was perfectly normal. This kind of thing happens all the time. It just stands out more when the topic is eye-catching or indignation-inducing.
Dang has a post about front page dynamics…somewhere on here.
I suspect HN has weights for popular words, e.g. "YouTube" gives +5, "anti-vax" gives -15 and so on.