I have seen quite a few comments that were extremely insightful, and/or interesting that got downmodded due to an unpopular opinion. The reason this is unfortunate is not only that you tend to miss these (assuming that there is a higher probability that you read or think about comments that are rated higher, which I am surely not the only one that is guilty of) but also that it tends to promote groupthink . This is especially important on a forum like this where we are here to learn and share our thoughts, ideas and experiences for a very particular niche: Starting startups.

I have noted that comments that don't promote the "build it and they will come" view tend to be voted down. Since this site is primarily populated with hackers this is entirely understandable - it is human nature to think that your part of the project is the most important. But the reason we all come here is (I presume) to learn. And the things about which we know the least are the things where we have most to learn.

It is not only a question of abuse, but also a question of opening peoples eyes to issues, problems and points of views that lie outside their expertise, but which they will probably encounter in a startup. And this includes such diverse fields as marketing, financing and sales.

I am here to learn about stuff I didn't know already, and that is often outside my field. In return for this I will offfer my opinions in the fields where I may have something to contribute.

At the end of the day this makes us all better entrepreneurs. Because as anyone who has ever done a startup will tell you - you have to get everything right. Hacking, finance, sales, PR, marketing, hiring, etc.

So I think that the up and down arrows should not express agreement, but insightfullness or truth. Not opinion. That way I will be able to judge the validity of a comment in a field that I do not know well by its points. And hopefully learn something.

http://reddit.com/info/68zz4/comments/

My thinking is along the lines of UserXYZ posts something humorous and gets 150 points. This causes others who feel they have a funny bone as well to pile in and attempt similarly witty remarks (which are initially harmless or contribute positively); but then you have an avalanche of users who become aspiring comedians on the message boards they frequent. I sometimes feel that these types tend to herd together and give each other a reason to continue with their behaviour by giving one another a few up-votes out of sympathy...

I would also say that the competitive nature of men in general (I'm a dude, and I won't assume anything on behalf of the women here) would contribute to certain sub-groups within this population with an increasing need to out-do one another. Thus a majority of the discussion devolves to one-liners and people trying to be funny, when all they do is come across as cynical while at the same time contributing little value.

In addition, attempts to be funny on a message board are somewhat akin to guessing on questions on your SAT exam: there is no penalty for trying. Whereas weakly setup arguments can carry a penalty of getting a barrage of refutations making yourself look (or perhaps more closer to the truth - FEEL) intellectually weaker.

Seriously, there's nothing university departments like to see in a graduate entrance application than published research. It doesn't have to be related to anything anyone at the department in question is working on (although that wouldn't hurt); simply demonstrating that you are capable of working independently, discovering new things, writing a coherent paper about them, and getting it published will put you ahead of the vast majority of applicants.

Edit: Sole authorships, while not necessary, are ideal -- with co-authorships (particularly involving undergraduate students) there's always a question as whether each author made any significant contribution.

-- Henry Ford.

Maybe the best advice you'll ever get here.

So find a customer early. Very early.

It's not what you asked for, but if you haven't read the likes of it before, you should. I wish I could have read it when I was your age. I wonder if I would have believed it.

If you still need advice on graduate admissions, I can tell you that pg and cperciva are on the right track. Undergrad research is particularly great, as it gives you lots of contact with an adviser who will write great recommendation letters for you.

Maybe, as an American, Scott associates wars with far-off, little-known lands. True in recent times for the US maybe, but certainly not for most conflicts.

I am TOTALLY guided by my customers. I wasn't always this way. I used to think that something would be so cool, so I would build it, and often, the project went nowhere. I was fortunate to have a co-founder at one time who insisted that we sell it first, then develop it. I never completely came around to his way of thinking, but now I understand where he was coming from.

My customers have never steered me wrong. They don't waste my time. They only spend energy describing things that they really need, and invariably, others need the same things.

The downside is that I never spend time working on my own pet projects. I KNOW I can build a better bridge game, fitness program, or home inventory program. I'd also love to blog. But all those things fall into the category of "No one else asked for it", so I simply don't spend time on them. Maybe some other time.