4 ms·

No, it really wasn't, you changed the link and title I posted to a completely different thing by removing the hash for the B-Spline section that I finally finis

No, it really wasn't, you changed the link and title I posted to a completely different thing by removing the hash for the B-Spline section that I finally finished adding to the primer about 10 minutes before posting the link, after having been in request for about 2 years, weeks of research, and days of writing/programming. The link was very specifically to https://pomax.github.io/bezierinfo/#bsplines https://pomax.github.io/bezierinfo/#bsplines, and the title specifically mentioned the fact that it was about B-Splines, not the base article (because the base article is nearly 70 print pages worth of content, and the point was to link straight to the spline section near the end instead of linking people to an article that's been on HN before several times, but never with this new content, because it didn't exist any of the previous times). A lot of people had requested it, and it was worth calling out on its own, specifically. Instead, by marking it a dupe and rewriting the link, you completely wasted the effort of posting it because no one will have any idea the last section is even there. Certainly, some people will have never seen the entire site, but fragment identifiers in URLs are there for a reason. Don't strip them out unless you can show the content people get is the same whether they click on the link with or without the hash. Which for this URL was absolutely not the case. So: can you please change this back, the link you rewrote it to is not useful for the purposes of why this was posted to HN, and the title you picked doesn't even make sense. This is a link to today's Primer, in 2016, not some historical tiny document from 2011, which the Primer was five years ago when I had only just started it.

cpach 10y ago
Oh, I see. FWIW, I’m not an admin though. However, I sent them an e-mail asking them to revert the changes. Also, from on HN user to another: Thank you for submitting high-quality links to the site. That’s what makes this site so awesome. Cheers!
- TheRealPomax 10y ago
  ah, I see! cheers!
fenomas 10y ago
@dang This is a fair complaint. The submitted link was the latest article in a series - it makes no sense to change the link to the first in the series, and then mark it a dupe because that article has been posted before.
dang 10y ago
I'm a day late, but just to clarify: moderators usually take anchors out of URLs because most of the time it's better for users to see the whole story for themselves. There are definitely exceptions, though, like this one. Sorry for getting it wrong. When we make that kind of mistake we're eager to hear about it and fix it; when we got cpach's email we fixed it right away. For everybody's future reference, one way to reduce the odds of this happening is to post a first comment in the thread explaining what's new about the story and/or what's special about the anchored portion that's linked to. You don't have to do that, of course, but it can be helpful for readers too, not just moderators.

cpach 10y ago

Oh, I see. FWIW, I’m not an admin though. However, I sent them an e-mail asking them to revert the changes. Also, from on HN user to another: Thank you for submitting high-quality links to the site. That’s what makes this site so awesome. Cheers!

TheRealPomax 10y ago
ah, I see! cheers!

fenomas 10y ago

@dang This is a fair complaint. The submitted link was the latest article in a series - it makes no sense to change the link to the first in the series, and then mark it a dupe because that article has been posted before.

dang 10y ago

I'm a day late, but just to clarify: moderators usually take anchors out of URLs because most of the time it's better for users to see the whole story for themselves. There are definitely exceptions, though, like this one. Sorry for getting it wrong. When we make that kind of mistake we're eager to hear about it and fix it; when we got cpach's email we fixed it right away. For everybody's future reference, one way to reduce the odds of this happening is to post a first comment in the thread explaining what's new about the story and/or what's special about the anchored portion that's linked to. You don't have to do that, of course, but it can be helpful for readers too, not just moderators.