4 ms·

I don't see how this article adds anything over its source http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-09/historic-150-net-short-position-carl-icahn-betting-imminent-

by ikeboy 11y ago

I don't see how this article adds anything over its source http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-09/historic-150-net-short-position-carl-icahn-betting-imminent-market-collapse http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-09/historic-150-net-sh..., that article has strictly more information. Can the url be changed?

kevando 11y ago
+1
lujim 11y ago
OP was probably using Fortune as a "wrapper class" for Zero Hedge to give it some reputability. I like Zero Hedge but old Tyler Durden is a bit of a perma-bear. Although that assumes that Fortune is reputable I guess.
- ddeck 11y ago
  >Although that assumes that Fortune is reputable I guess Indeed. I'm not sure how reputable can a site be with several thousand non-staff "external contributors" producing content. I've never found anything original there and typically avoid it in search results.
  - snowwrestler 11y ago
    Are you confusing Fortune with Forbes?
    - ddeck 11y ago
      While I agree that Forbes is much worse in this regard, I was referring to Fortune: >Heeding the call for traffic growth, Fortune has joined the growing ranks of publishers that are opening up its site to posts written by non-staff contributors. Each publisher has a slightly different approach, and Fortune is no different. The Time Inc. title draws from a 5,000-person contributor network who supply what Fortune digital editor Aaron Task calls “our op-ed page.” http://digiday.com/publishers/fortune-hopes-avoid-platform-publishing-pitfalls/ http://digiday.com/publishers/fortune-hopes-avoid-platform-p...
      - snowwrestler 11y ago
        Wow, I had no idea. Thanks.
mywittyname 11y ago
Probably because when you see a link to ZH, you know exactly what it's going to say. The economy is bad, the market should have crashed yesterday, the USG is broke, etc. ZH has little predictive credibility; they've been wrong their entire existence. They just make a shitload of money off click-bait articles. So not a lot of people are going to be willing to go to a ZH link, but if you link to Fortune, somebody might fall for it.
cloakandswagger 11y ago
HN has an irrational aversion to ZH, with some posters here suggesting it should be banned as a source entirely.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  If it should be banned, then any article sourcing only from it should be banned as well. That's an obvious loophole.
- randomname2 11y ago
  @dang actually posted not too long ago that ZH already is a banned site on HN.

by ikeboy 11y ago

kevando 11y ago

lujim 11y ago

OP was probably using Fortune as a "wrapper class" for Zero Hedge to give it some reputability. I like Zero Hedge but old Tyler Durden is a bit of a perma-bear. Although that assumes that Fortune is reputable I guess.

ddeck 11y ago
>Although that assumes that Fortune is reputable I guess Indeed. I'm not sure how reputable can a site be with several thousand non-staff "external contributors" producing content. I've never found anything original there and typically avoid it in search results.
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  Are you confusing Fortune with Forbes?
  - ddeck 11y ago
    While I agree that Forbes is much worse in this regard, I was referring to Fortune: >Heeding the call for traffic growth, Fortune has joined the growing ranks of publishers that are opening up its site to posts written by non-staff contributors. Each publisher has a slightly different approach, and Fortune is no different. The Time Inc. title draws from a 5,000-person contributor network who supply what Fortune digital editor Aaron Task calls “our op-ed page.” http://digiday.com/publishers/fortune-hopes-avoid-platform-publishing-pitfalls/ http://digiday.com/publishers/fortune-hopes-avoid-platform-p...
    - snowwrestler 11y ago
      Wow, I had no idea. Thanks.

mywittyname 11y ago

Probably because when you see a link to ZH, you know exactly what it's going to say. The economy is bad, the market should have crashed yesterday, the USG is broke, etc. ZH has little predictive credibility; they've been wrong their entire existence. They just make a shitload of money off click-bait articles. So not a lot of people are going to be willing to go to a ZH link, but if you link to Fortune, somebody might fall for it.

cloakandswagger 11y ago

HN has an irrational aversion to ZH, with some posters here suggesting it should be banned as a source entirely.

ikeboy 11y ago
If it should be banned, then any article sourcing only from it should be banned as well. That's an obvious loophole.
randomname2 11y ago
@dang actually posted not too long ago that ZH already is a banned site on HN.