41 comments
dowager_dan99 · 13 hours ago
I don't want to discourage this type of retrospective, but we (science-type humans) love to look for causal explanations, and can do a great job of reverse-engineering rationale. Even though I think you did do a bunch of things to encourage engagement, it seems like it's more boosted your luck of getting traction from a very small fractional percent to a slightly larger but still very small fractional percent.

Show replies

yapyap · 13 hours ago
I find it kinda odd some people seem to be against this article.

Sure an off the cuff thought could be an unease with an “guide to going viral on HN” but OP isn’t disclosing any secret hacks or anything from what I’ve read, he just wrote down his creative process and reflected a bit on the virality.

I’m sure a bad actor wanting to go viral on HN could think of this themselves within a days work as well, it’s just a fun article.

vunderba · 13 hours ago
The fact that this article (which follows none of its own advice) is steadily making its way to the top of hacker news sort of invalidates all the actual recommendations in the article itself.
anyonecancode · 12 hours ago
I think there's a lot to be said for knowing your audience. I don't submit often, and most of my submissions only get a handful of points -- very rarely have I had one get onto the front page. (To be clear, I'm talking about submissions of article I found interesting, not things I've written myself, so this is a bit different than TFA's focus).

But, there was one submission I made I knew instantly would be very popular -- The elusive future of San Francisco’s fog -- 152 points, the most by far. Given that many on this forum live, work, or visit SF, and that people everywhere love to talk about the weather, and that SF's fog is an iconic aspect of SF weather, I knew there'd be interest.

stevage · 15 hours ago
I'm torn between "nice writeup" and "ugh, a guide to making viral content on HN?"

Show replies