Hacker News
new
|
past
|
comments
|
ask
|
show
|
jobs
|
submit
login
dang
on Dec 29, 2014
|
parent
|
context
|
favorite
| on:
Quake on an oscilloscope
This was posted earlier and set off the voting ring detector. I haven't looked closely, but that may have been a false positive. Since it's a good post and didn't get the attention it deserves, we won't treat this one as a duplicate.
eps
on Dec 29, 2014
|
next
[–]
It was/is on top of proggit, so people must've just reposted it here en masse, driving the upvote count up quickly.
dang
on Dec 29, 2014
|
parent
|
next
[–]
I think that explains it. Thanks!
TeMPOraL
on Dec 29, 2014
|
prev
|
next
[–]
Good to see that there are people in the loop constantly correcting false positives. As I said before, I like how HN changed recently. Thank you!
dalke
on Dec 29, 2014
|
prev
|
next
[–]
There are currently 6 posts in the last 24 hours on this, of which 3 (including this one) point to variations of the same URL.
dang
on Dec 29, 2014
|
parent
|
next
[–]
We don't go by that so much as whether the post has had significant attention yet.
mwfj
on Dec 29, 2014
|
prev
|
next
[–]
I think your voting ring detection logic is perhaps overly simplistic, then. :/
(I tried to post it myself after seeing it on facebook in a swedish/scandinavian group.)
tdicola
on Dec 29, 2014
|
prev
[–]
Your logic needs to be tweaked, I'm not a part of any voting ring or whatever.
mwfj
on Dec 29, 2014
|
parent
[–]
I think this post has just proven that any voting ring detector without NSA-level background detail on each voting individual is broken by design.
dang
on Dec 29, 2014
|
root
|
parent
[–]
It's a category error to expect perfection from a statistical system.
lotsofmangos
on Dec 29, 2014
|
root
|
parent
[–]
Someone should print that on the front of every textbook on economics.
Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4
Guidelines
|
FAQ
|
Lists
|
API
|
Security
|
Legal
|
Apply to YC
|
Contact
Search:
