Discussion from October 2015: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10412465" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10412465</a><p>My take on it is:<p>HN/Slashdot commenters can be valuable for pointing out what's technically wrong with the product. They also tend to put too much weight on product's shortcomings. However, they are blind to what's <i>right</i> about the product or discount the product's strengths for the non-geek consumer.<p>However, that doesn't mean that average consumers are ultimately right either. On the one hand, they don't have the technical understanding which often skews the prediction towards market failure. Their naivete just lets them try the product and vote with their wallets. On the other hand, that lack of knowledge leads to unrealistic hypothetical products... e.g. <i>"if they can put a man on the moon, why can't my smartphone battery last 3 months and project a 4k video with 5000 lumens on my living room wall?"</i> (relevant XKCD: <a href="https://xkcd.com/1425/" rel="nofollow">https://xkcd.com/1425/</a>)
This really just puts more strength in the idea that success is largely luck-based.<p>No one can accurately predict success. Not specialized forums, not specialized workers in the field, and <i>not even VCs whose sole incentive is to make money by investing in great ideas</i>.<p>Even YC says as much that they have no clear idea as to what will be a success, and their strongest signal is the strength of the founders, and that there should be co-founders. I'm not sure how their experiment went with inducting people into YC just based solely on who they were, without an idea, but that's just further evidence that even people obsessed with finding success basically have no clear idea or signal as to what makes a success.
Meh.<p>When I submit my project to Show HN it'll be to have the stupid obvious things, or gaping security FU, I've missed ripped to shreds. That's the point to my mind. Same if I were showing it to /r/programming. They're my sanity check before pushing for users.<p>Hopefully I've already got a good idea of the market before I do that. If I want positive outlook, perhaps equally unrealistic or wrong, I'd submit to whatever non-technical reddit suits the service.<p>Does anyone submit MVP to HN in the expectation of glowing praise or predictions of success?<p>e.g. I <i>still</i> don't like Quora, and rarely even visit, especially after the sign-in to view more change.
There's a certain amount of insane luck involved in any startup succeeding; you have factors like financing, broader industry investment trends, initial financing that involve just blind luck that is out of your control. To say nothing of all the ways you could control but ultimately screw up, in some way that ultimately kills the company.<p>Add to that some idea that is not normal and involves actually changing the way society thinks and acts. Or some idea that runs headlong into a highly regulated industry and involves a gamble on winning (zenefits, Uber, lyft). Calling these ideas crazy is basically stating the obvious. The unnormal result is that they actually succeed. And good for them for doing it, and I'm not discounting the skill and ideation or how well these people "earned" the success. I'm just saying let's not discount that they were still lucky and that the ideas were crazy -- this is statistical fact.
Ugh. There <i>really</i> should be a logical fallacy around the fact that Hacker News was incorrect about Dropbox and other companies, and how it's not a license to <i>ignore comments altogether</i>. I really wish people would stop referring to the Dropbox story on HN as an example of "ignore the haters because they are wrong." Dropbox, and the other startups mentioned in the post, are <i>outliers</i>, not typical examples, and also cases that people have learned from since 2008.
There are so many comments on hacker news of the flavor: "Why would anyone use this when you can build it yourself in five minutes using x, y and z open source tools" completely ignoring how much knowledge you have to have retained in order to build it in five minutes.
This reminds me of something Joel Spolsky said on a podcast several years back. The gist was many newer ideas for startups that turned out to be great, were first met with criticism or labeled bad ideas. Because if the new idea was too obvious, it was probably already done by someone else. (At least that is what I think he meant. Wish I could find the show notes.)
There doesn't appear to be any justification given for the eight posts selected for analysis. Given that nearly everything fails, choosing seven well recognized successes and one started that scaled quickly but failed seems an interesting methodological choice. Neither to they present any evidence that anyone is, in fact, obsessing over HN comments. The whole thing is "don't let the haters get you down" tweet expanded endlessly. With a infographic.<p>One can admire the article as a piece of analysis shaped SEO-bait, even as one despairs over the value it subtracts from the world by existing.
Who'd have thought a community of grognards seemingly interested only in the latest JavaScript framework and <i>a priori</i> inserting Latin idioms into places they don't belong makes a poor predictor of startup success?
Oh god, this reminds me of the time I told Bram Cohen that Bit Torrent would never work. Of course, I just didn't understand what he was trying to do. Face, meet egg.
Interesting article, but the example at the beginning doesn't strike me as a very good one.<p>The commenters <i>were</i> correct in being concerned about safety, and the suggestion to link Facebook <i>was</i> implemented.<p>I remember when I signed up for AirBnB my biggest concern was not being able to trust the person renting the place. Their account being linked to a Facebook profile (mostly) solved this problem for me.
AirBnB poses a safety risk to homeowners. The fact that it's also a billion dollar business now doesn't change that. Additional problems have been discovered with AirBnB's business model, which are arguably even worse.<p>Sure, if all you care about is money, those criticisms don't matter. But personally, I care about if I might have a negative effect on the world.
I agree with the gist of the story, but I find the example poorly chosen.<p>The launch post regarding AirBNB set a tone with it's title that set people up to be critical...<i>"Sleep under my kitchen table.."</i> Even for those that understood the tongue-in-cheek there, the title is self deprecating.<p>I suspect the thread would have had a more positive tone with a different title.
Just in case you're reading the comments here -
In the infographic section "Comments were generally negative and top comment tended to reflect this sentiment."
the POSITIVE / NEGATIVE categories are swapped.
What I would find interesting is not just the positive\negative ratio of comments for successful projects, but also a comparison with less successful\failed ones.<p>Do successful projects receive more positive comments?
Oops, seems I've gone over the top about obsessing with HN comments:<p><a href="http://comments.network/" rel="nofollow">http://comments.network/</a>
I'm not sure how valid this premise of this article is.<p>I would imagine that most startup founders probably spend maybe 10-15% of their day worrying about HN/Product Hunt comments. I forget who said it (maybe pg?), but HN isn't meant to be used as support board, especially for YC companies. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, especially if there is malfeasance or fraud involved.
Comments on HN can be enlightening as to how people think. Never look here for validation of innovative ideas though. It's just not meant for that kind of discussion.
It would be nice if the Rust evangelists could show a little restraint. When a Rust article is posted (multiple times a day) and people disagree with its greatness there is no need to post even more articles about Rust closely related to the previous stories.
Oh my God, but without HN, how will I validate my existence?<p>... said me, while sipping expensive wine out of a crystal chalice that came from the 9th century while sitting on a throne made of the finest organic pasture raised bovine hide, while smoking a Stradavarius (the violin, not the cigar).