Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

IANAQ* , but could not the effects shown in this article occur from content-neutral rules, combined with some clustering in the popularity of various subreddits?

For example, assume there is a rule that a given subreddit can have no more than N posts in the top 50 at a given time. It seems like this alone would explain the clustering shown in the article. Super-popular subreddits like /r/funny would rarely have posts on page 2, simply because they usually already have N posts on page 1. Thus they drop off sharply in likelihood to appear in the 40s, then shoot back up after #50 when the limiting stops.

Meanwhile clusters 2 and 3 appear to be the subreddits which rarely and often (respectively) reach the top 50, but only due to the limiting rule. Cluster 2 is the least popular in the unlimited spots past #50, so it makes sense that it usually reaches the lowest of the limited spots, while cluster 3 (apparently medium in overall popularity) takes the middle region.

Naturally I'm just squinting at it, but it looks like the article's findings could easily occur without Reddit treating some subreddits differently from others (as I take the author to imply it might, given the title). Am I missing something?

* I am not a quant :P




For those curious,

quant |kwänt| noun informal a quantitative analyst.

ORIGIN 1970s: abbreviation.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: