

Ask HN: Is the 'new' page the best way to pick news? - robot

I feel that new submissions have a highly randomized chance of getting picked up by upvotes due to the nature of the new page.<p>There are already a lot of submissions, and depending on the rate of submissions at the time you submit, and the number of eyeballs on the new page, it is a matter of chance that a good submission catches any interest.<p>I would rather prefer that the effect of luck is reduced and good submissions always get picked up. For example, new submissions could be organized in a different way for people to upvote. E.g. I should be able to have a day's worth of time window to check new submissions and upvote them, and search for keywords in submissions. Any comments?
======
makecheck
I tend to stick with the "new" page, yes. I prefer stability, and I know that
when I return to that page I'll immediately see what is different (i.e. what's
at the top). Then again, I probably check the site more often than most
people.

I imagine the "crowd-sourced" front page is the most useful to people who
won't be taking the time to click a lot of "More" links and just want to read
a few interesting things.

Another reason I check "new" is because I occasionally flag things, and it's
unlikely that posts requiring a flag are going to appear anywhere else.

------
saiko-chriskun
I also read hacker news off the 'new' page. I find many interesting links that
don't make it to the front page, and I don't find it very difficult to keep up
with, but again I 'spose that depends on how often you're willing to keep up
with it :P.

Plus someone has to give those initial upvotes :P

------
dgunn
I think the whole idea of an aggregator is that some users will prefer the new
submissions and some will prefer the aggregated results. Neither is best but
the "new" section is required for the model.

