As far as I can tell, the reptile-brain reaction:

For art and songs and primary research articles and other sorts of actual ORIGINAL content: 'Neat.'

For blog posts, book reviews, and editorial: 'Who the fuck is this person who thinks their opinion is more important than everyone else's, unless they're an expert?' Unless you're an expert it's almost as if you're a wannabe Rush Limbaugh or a wannabe-but-unfunny-version-of Jon Stewart

It's the distinction between primary and secondary sources, to use a term from my field of work.

There's also a touch of 'You had to advertise this on the internet? It didn't work when you used other more legitimate-seeming methods?' Because (and I'm one of the people who thinks this too) the Internet is kind of immaterial and ephemeral in some ways; you can anonymously loose something in it, and then lose the same thing in it. Internet people don't make the same impression as people encountered offline in some ways. There's no real consequence a lot of the time from just logging off and abandoning a website. Hell, I did that with Reddit, and the folks posting to it vanished into thin air to me mentally. The internet is kind of cheap and low-effort, too.

In fact, if I decided to leave Hubski right now (which I'm not), I'd just forget that all of you exist.