And HN is arguably better for not being invite-only. There are so many articles on HN where the top comment is by somebody with deep domain knowledge who provides some kind of original insight that fits into the low length and polish expectations of a comment, but would never have become a formal blog post. Invite-only communities intentionally give up on that kind of discourse for... what? Easier moderation?
> This has snowballed and now the community is full of experts in their fields<p>The front page is mostly dead. The most discussed thread has like 17 comments. And a lot of those comments are uninteresting - e.g. "Hey, really nice post!".<p>I think it's more important to have a lot of users, with the occasional user that has a deep expertise in one area rather than a small group of people that are slightly better on average.<p>Honestly, there are probably plenty of small subreddits that have a higher level of expertise. Places like /r/askhistorian have proven that it's possible to have really good in-depth and insightful discussions if a modicum of moderation is implemented. It's especially easy for topics related to a profession and even more generalized, topics that aren't too inflammatory like politics or religion.
I think the invite only aspect of it can be a problem. The invitee needs to get the invite from someone that they either know in real life or someone who can vouch for them online.<p>The former isn't a great solution because it requires users to be linked to their real identity by at least one person. Real identities have some advantages, but requiring it bars a lot of good discussions that people don't want linked to their real name. Allowing pseudonyms gives people freedom to publicly say something they would traditionally only say privately or sometimes not at all. If it is paired with strong moderation, like HN is, it can prevent the greater internet fuckwad theory from going into effect which is a common problem with anonymous communities.<p>If you have people inviting people that they don't know the real identity of, the invite system isn't really adding anything beyond making it slightly more complicated to join. I could understand a theory that a higher barrier to entry means that only people with a high desire will join resulting in a better community. It is possible that results in better discussion, but I'm not sold because there are plenty of bad users like spammers and bots that are also highly motivated.
Tangential: I have recently had my articles featured on the front page of Lobsters and HN within hours of each other. Not the same article, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, but:<p>- It's very hard for a HN post to get noticed. New posts linger in /newest (frequented by relatively few people) for about half an hour before falling down to the second page, and you need to be lucky enough to receive enough upvotes in that timeframe to hit the front page. Lobsters' "success rate" appears to be higher.<p>- In terms of traffic, I got about 11K hits from unique IPs from HN and about 1.7K from Lobsters.<p>- I like that Lobsters clearly indicates when a submission is authored by its submitter.<p>Overall, as people have mentioned, both communities are great. I've been here for 10+ years – thank you for everything, HN!
I disagree [that it is "better"]. I am a wayward hacker in a non-tech field. Don't know anyone from whom to obtain an invitation (to be clear, not soliciting for one -- don't have time for another site/newsfeed), probably even within 1-2 degrees of separation. I suppose they are perfectly happy remaining small and low-traffic, so it works for them.
Why do we need to do this kind of comparison? They are both quite nice. I think HN is better for what I look for (but r/programminglanguages and a few others are even better) as there are just a lot of people here who actually have experience with the topics discussed. PL experts, formal method experts, cancer experts, etc everyone is ready to write quite a nice explanation for nothing. The volume on Lobste.rs for some topics is just not large enough to get an insightful convo going.<p>Also I notice a lot of Lobste.rs is a mix between my fav subreddits & HN. So it's a circlejerk. But then again r/programmingcirclejerk is one of my favorite subreddits anyway.
The invite-only nature will only benefit the site while it's small. It will either stay small or suffer the same users as other sites. The down-vote with reason feature is nice.
I haven't tried lobste.rs. but I enjoy HN without tags (In fact I don't think I'd use tags if HN brings this feature). I enjoy reading articles from different domains (other than tech). And this variety is what keeps me engaged to this platform.
Is it better to limit access to limit access to only those you personally know?<p>Sounds like a great way to limit exposure to differing thoughts, experiences, and opinions.<p>If you’re only hearing from those in your friend circle, it’s just another glorified chat room... nothing new here
I replied to the author on Mastodon earlier. Copypasta:<p>>huh, I totally disagree. The moderation on Lobsters is really self-interested and fickle, and there's little done to protect any opinions which differ from the mainstream. I've seen a lot of trolls and hateful threads go unmoderated just because they agree with the party line. The platform also has a censorship problem, in which they merge new posts into old posts even if they're tangentally related - for example, if an article spreading misinformation front pages on Lobsters, the rebuttal posted the next day will be quickly merged into the original thread which, by then, is on the second page and already passed through most Lobsters reader's purview.<p>>The HN mods go out of their way to try and make a community which is diverse and representative of a broad set of viewpoints. Sometimes this goes too far and allows really dissonant opinions to be surfaced, but on the whole I think this approach is better.<p>I also agree that HN has its share of problems, though. Someone else pointed out that HN has a problem wherein a small minority of users can flag posts out of existence.
I'm interested to try out participating... but I cannot get an invite, despite talking with folks in their irc, posting my homepage, some projects, github profile, etc.<p>Meanwhile, other folks are coming into the channel and getting invites. That's annoying...
While I do agree that having to give a solid reason before downvoting would be a much welcome feature to HN, being invite-only makes it a non-starter, and it only fosters elitism.<p>Sure, it'll always have a small, curated community, but you can be assured the politeness will stay skin-deep before long and there simply won't be enough differing points of view to allow insightful discussion of any kind. It's the same issue I keep seeing time and time again in other closed communities (e.g. invite-only Mastodon instances) where it ends up rotting them from the inside out: they're too big to remain cohesive as just a group of friends, but too small to receive any fresh air. I'd believe "cliques" would be the less polite way to call them.
Comments on the same post on Lobsters: <a href="https://lobste.rs/s/bxuqzy/why_lobste_rs_is_better_than_hacker_news" rel="nofollow">https://lobste.rs/s/bxuqzy/why_lobste_rs_is_better_than_hack...</a>
One popular tech site in Russian was invite-only for a very long time: <a href="https://habr.com" rel="nofollow">https://habr.com</a> I remember you could get in by someone inviting you or if you wrote a good guest post (there was a separate area for this kind of guest posts and no one could see who the author is). I got impression that invite-only system worked quite well as the site was known for high-quality content and discussions.
If you want an invite, email me with your username or some other places where you've commented and if you don't seem like an asshole I'll hook you up.
Look all social platforms (from blogs to news aggregators and networks) continuously change. Not in the manner of the ship of Theseus but in the concept that the people who use the platform determine what the site is all about.<p>What eventually happens is that the people that have been there the longest reminisce when the site was different and they actually preferred that kind of content. But, the site has gone into a new direction.
Invite only? Google in beginning was the same, hence why I never made a gmail account and stayed on yahoo, which allowed me to easy move from it to protonmail 15 years later. Also Facebook was the same, only students were allowed in beginning, which meant I never made a Facebook account either.
The down-vote feature (for those who didn't read the article: you have to provide feedback to down-vote) is something I've spent years saying HN badly needs.<p>These days I just don't bother posting most of the time because while I shouldn't be bothered by abuse of negative rep; you can't help be pissed off when you've spent a short while including detail only for someone who doesn't understand the subject or has a personal bias in the subject to react with a knee-jerk down vote. It's not as bad when people reply because at least you gain context into their point of view (even if you don't agree with them) but it always felt, dare I say, "rude" to effectively fine a comment karma without explaining why you've done so.<p>Also HN's model actively encourages burner accounts where people will say something they know to be contentious with an anonymous account so they don't burn their own karma. The problem with that is that can then sometimes lead to trolling too. After all, why sensor your opinion if you're now a burner account?<p>There used to be so much good content posted in the comments but the quality seems to have diminished over the years and I honestly think that's in part due to more people reaching the karma threshold for down-voting. The more times a genuinely thoughtful or informative post gets a knee-jerk negative vote, the less people will feel inclined to give up their time writing thoughtful or informative comments.
I like the reasoning behind lobste.rs that was described. When it first came out, i simply thought it was a clone of hacker news. Having read this post, I'm intrigued. I've recently been spending more of my time on tildes.net (and highly enjoying it!) rather than hacker news...So maybe I'll start focusing on tildes.net and lobste.rs, instead of HN...hmmm.
Lobste.rs has a better site and functionality, but HN has a better community and much more activity/discussion. Though I want to note that having a better community doesn't mean the people on HN are nicer or more educated. There's just more users on this site, and thus more content overall, which means a larger amount of good content.<p>I guess you could always read both.
I personally don't see the appeal with Lobste.rs. Every time I see it mentioned on here, I'll go back to take a look but I never see enough interesting discussion or content to make me consistently return, or desire an invite.<p>As a Reddit / Hacker News-alternative (or supplement), I've been far more impressed by Tildes.
Firstly, I like HN. I've been regularly visiting this site for over a year, and I like the content and commentary.<p>And while I like the idea that anyone can join, it would be really nice to limit the down vote for the same reasons outlined in other comments here.<p>Someone I work with put it bluntly when they said "Just post a polite but witty reply to something on Hacker News and watch your points tumble like corporate stock after a security breach."
(I'm the Lobsters admin.)<p>I think "better" is too reductive a framing for comparing things as broad and deep as online communities. There's no single dimension to judge quality on, and it's largely a matter of personal taste. I appreciate the praise but this post feels like a missed opportunity for a really valuable conversation about how design features have shaped these two sites (to say nothing of the dozens of others they draw inspiration from). In short: <a href="https://lobste.rs/s/bxuqzy/why_lobste_rs_is_better_than_hacker_news#c_sj4hof" rel="nofollow">https://lobste.rs/s/bxuqzy/why_lobste_rs_is_better_than_hack...</a><p>Couple previous takes when we've been mentioned here: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21453180" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21453180</a> <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21947299" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21947299</a> <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20892064" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20892064</a>
As with licences, I've got a "hand-wavy" opinion that the sum is greater than the components.<p>Hacker News and Lobste.rs together is greater than either in isolation.<p>Some of the pummelings I've received on here have been justified rebukes of jackassery.<p>A couple have seemed burnings at the stake for violations of orthodoxy. But asbestos nickers are just what you wear.
One thing I noticed is that the search feature on there is far worse than HN's. Doing a side by side comparison, I have to go to the 2nd or 3rd page on Lobste.rs to get the results that I would have expected to be first.
Speaking on behalf of Lobsters, I'll repost my former comment about this site when I explained it to Hacker News:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17873715" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17873715</a><p>Feedback from Lobsters, esp those that run the site and major contirbutors, was mostly in agreement. Most responses preferred one or more of peaceful coexistence, getting good from both, and/or cross-posting good stories/comments to both communities. A seemingly-tiny group does hate HN or SV, though. We're less about which is best so much as helping make the one(s) we use the best.<p>On Lobsters, culture articles usually get more upvotes than downvotes. This article on Lobsters got a <i>large</i> number of downvotes at a higher-than-usual ratio indicating they thought it doesn't represent Lobsters' vies and/or might offend the HN community. That's despite kevq being a guy we like who writes and submits lots of content that gets plenty of upvotes. Just throwing out there for anyone on HN wandering if this was a group consensus or just kevq's thing.<p>Speaking for <i>myself</i> to address a few comments in this thread:<p>1. Looks dead. It usually is on weekends. Check back Monday and Wednesday. Always slower-moving, lower comments, and just more laid back, though. Although niche, we're unusually strong in accessibility, formalmethods, plt, and testing. Look at the tags:<p><a href="https://lobste.rs/tags" rel="nofollow">https://lobste.rs/tags</a><p>2. Politics, echo chambers, moderation, etc. The site itself is diverse. The main preferences in voting are people that just want deep tech vs people that want human side and/or political (most far-left-leaning). There's plenty in between who submit links, drop in randomly, etc. These two are just most vocal about preferences. If not haters or trolling, then moderators let visibility be determined by votes w/ worst collapsed, not deleted. Deletes and bans are rare with constructive criticism from community being most common.<p>3. Experts. Lobsters comments has higher expert-to-non-expert ratio on a lot of topics due to its model. HN's model and long history gives it a higher volume of experts and expert comments. The two are also usually different even on same article or topic. Reading both sites is best for maximizing expertise.<p>Dan, I appreciate the list you posted illustrating No 3 since I've needed that on most of the occasions I've described HN's diverse array of experts to people not on the site. Definitely passing it along.