I think it really depends. If YC makes it a point to select only ex-entrepreneurs who have proven themselves, it could be a good thing. But if they start letting anyone who has good background into this, Dustin is absolutely right.
Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker in 2009 said, "I wish someone would give me one shred of neutral evidence that financial innovation has led to economic growth - one shred of evidence… [U.S. Financial services increased its share of value-added from 2 percent to 6.5 percent] Is that a reflection of your financial innovation, or just a reflection of what you're paid?" The only financial innovation over the past 20 years that impressed Volcker was the automated teller machine.
India: Varies vastly. In bigger cities we love to see women reach for the check. In smaller cities, almost always the man is expected to cover every time.
I am not sure if limiting the submissions per day should be our goal. It's obstruction of freedom of speech- which is do not stand for. Even if we limit the user, how are we making the site productive?
The real problem is not that someone has 100K karma, rather, it's that because of this excessive submissions real stories are lost in the mix.
How do we help good stories/discussions come to light?
Karma is a vanity metric, let's look beyond it ya'll
Ha. This is a classic community phenomenon. You can also notice this in Foursquare, Twitter, and almost every other community based site. I think us as a community need to start encouraging progressive and meaningful arguments, rather than just the top news.
I would like to come to HN to have a conversation/ discussion about something new rather than a link to NYT.
One idea would be to create separate sections for discussions, news, blog links, at all.
And how would that discourage the behavior of autosubmitting?
The speed in which new URLs are submitted by the same user should be limited according to their karma. (Assuming users with high points are trustworthy, which is the primary reason this metric is made for.)
New users could start with a 24 hour limit between submissions (86,400 seconds) and get 20 seconds removed for every karma point. Someone with 2000 karma would be able to submit every 12.8 hours. By 4000 you've probably learned that quality beats quantity.
That seems fair, though it might be better to use average story karma. The bots in question probably have a fair amount of karma just from the sheer number of stories submitted.
Multiply the value by their average. It boosts overall submission quality automatically by giving better commenters more chances for a front page article.
edit: Though the value would need to be much lower than 20 per karma with that modifier. My average of 2.73 with 2011 karma would let me post as much as I want.
karma * 3.7 * average would come to around 20,000 for me. That would let me submit an article every 18 hours.
My opinion is that this is not web 2.0 at all. The moment you start selling anything on this site, i have a feeling these college kids are going to turn their heads away. It will be only a matter of time before horror stories of stalking sprout up!
