https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1501.07860/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9611169urn:hackerpapers:submission:1501.07860:9611169Wed, 27 May 2015 13:32:46 GMT<p>Popularity and Quality in Social News Aggregators: A Study of Reddit and Hacker News</p><p></p><p>2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. <a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1501.07860/">Paper and source history</a>. A submission is not an endorsement.</p>cs.SIhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9057890urn:hackerpapers:mention:1501.07860:9057890Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:15:44 GMT<p>At the risk of plugging my own work, I did a follow-up to the (really awesome) Watt&#x27;s experiment using data from reddit and Hacker News: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.07860 The work isn&#x27;t complete yet (always more to do) but the TL;DR is: 1. Yes, randomness governs a lot of article outcomes. Whether something hits the front page or not is pretty arbitrary. 2. However, conditioned on making the front page, popularity is actually a good reflection of &quot;intrinsic quality&quot;. I think the ultimate relationship between popularity and quality is stronger than the MusicLab experiment suggests.</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1501.07860/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cs.SIhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8983409urn:hackerpapers:submission:1501.07860:8983409Mon, 02 Feb 2015 09:35:03 GMT<p>[arXiv] a Study of Popularity and Quality in Reddit and Hacker News</p><p></p><p>3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. <a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1501.07860/">Paper and source history</a>. A submission is not an endorsement.</p>cs.SI