How do you separate the credibility of a website on its own from the credibility lent to it by exposure on websites like HN? Ideally you'd hope that the reason something gets exposure on HN is because it meets a minimum level of inherent credibility on its own, wouldn't you?
> Ideally you'd hope that the reason something gets exposure on HN is because it meets a minimum level of inherent credibility on its own, wouldn't you?
Ideally. In practice, I think HN lends more credibility to some things that don't deserve that extra credibility.
I'm not trying to suggest that the original article was wrong or not credible. Rather, would it be successful without the HN influence? While I don't think the original idea is bad, I think the success was due to HN.
No. This is a misconception. Think of the content on Hacker News much as you would the performers of the old-style circus freakshows. They're something to gawk at or to entertain you, nothing more.
