Hacker News Reader

That's because there is no value in gathering and publishing data for its own sake. Conclusive results are valuable because you can act on them to achieve something. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Ignoring inconclusive/negative data is only problematic if it contradicts the data you choose to act on.

View on HN

What about genome sequencing? Or census taking? Or benchmark characterization? There is quite a bit of data publishing that is valuable to other researchers.

Talking about what didn't work is good because it stops other people from repeating failed experiments.

Finally, in this case, it does contradict the NY study.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com