Hacker News Reader

Comment by stared | Hacker News Reader

Very nice, but IMHO too much of clutter. Why 3 abstracts?

Wouldn't it be better to have one abstract and leave arXiv abstract and GitHub abstract in their places (or import them)?

View on HN

top abstract = human readable overview of what paper/code describes. the other abstracts are paper/code specific - which often deviate allot. The aim is to give you an overview at a glance. If you have ideas on how to improve, please post them on our github issues page, always open for great suggestions!

But then, isn't it better to have one high-level overview instead of 3 overlapping overviews? (3 overviews do not make it easier to get a quick grasp of the project.)

I don't have a quick solution - it's much matter of taste (and balance).

BTW:

- Any plans to add some external measures of interest? (E.g. GitHub stars, arXiv trackbacks, SciRate scites/# of comments?)

The authors often don´t provide one or the other, so we opted to give them choice over convention. API integrations are planned down the line. As well as using machine learning techniques to cut down on noise.

I suppose the idea is allowing more than a single paper and/or implementation in each topic, since a certain paper can have a follow-over or technical report and be implemented in different languages or over different frameworks.

yes you nailed it. At the moment if there are multiple implementation the author can just (rather arbitrarily) add the github implementation he/she likes the most as "github" link, and other code implementations as side links. ie rnn-char (http://gitxiv.com/posts/W6Y3pLrEAG5jmuJzz/char-rnn) main and original torch implementation, with to the side extra info + links to pure python, chainer, caffe (apollo). Maybe not the most elegant solution, but it works for now :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com