5 ms·

Technically a dupe would be visible here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Seagate%20wants%20to%20push%20huge%2016TB%20HDD%20out%20the%20door%20in%20next%2018%20mo

Technically a dupe would be visible here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Seagate%20wants%20to%20push%20huge%2016TB%20HDD%20out%20the%20door%20in%20next%2018%20months&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=story&storyText=false&prefix&page=0 https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Seagate%20wants%20to%20push%20... different author, different source. I have a personal preference for Arstechnica because they give more technical details.

grzm 10y ago
Understood. The article likely is substantially the same as the Techspot piece that was submitted earlier. (They're both cribbing from the same PC World article: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3162084/storage/seagates-roadmap-includes-14tb-16tb-hard-drives-within-18-months.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/3162084/storage/seagates-road...) As there's already over 100 comments on the other submissions, the "dupe" is a pointer to the earlier discussion. While not a link to exactly the same article, using "dupe" to indicate this is not uncommon here on HN.
- bootload 10y ago
  Thanks @grzm didn't see that one. "Dupe". Not uncommon (HNr for 10yrs in a month), inaccurate though. I wish HNs would be specific, because I interpret "dupe" as literally "duplicate" article. Better to highlight earlier, better discussion and link.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Yeah, I've thought about that, too, even when marking this submission. Any suggestions for something that succinctly conveys the meaning?
    - bootload 10y ago
      @grzm, probably more scalable as a ^dupe^ flag set by users (with high enough karma) and when duplicate submission checked by Angolia search.
      - grzm 10y ago
        I'm not sure I understand. I'm looking for a succinct way of expressing "this is nearly the same submission as this other one that already has a substantial discussion: you should likely comment over there". As I understand what you've said, nothing should be done as it's not an exact dupe? I don't see how that's helpful, as what would essentially be the same discussion would be potentially split across two (or more) submission threads. Or if you're saying it should be flagged [dupe] (as opposed to having a comment note that it's a dupe), I'm not sure I see much of a meaningful distinction between a [dupe] flag and a "dupe:" comment. I suspect I'm not interpreting what you've said correctly. Thanks for your patience :)

grzm 10y ago

Understood. The article likely is substantially the same as the Techspot piece that was submitted earlier. (They're both cribbing from the same PC World article: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3162084/storage/seagates-roadmap-includes-14tb-16tb-hard-drives-within-18-months.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/3162084/storage/seagates-road...) As there's already over 100 comments on the other submissions, the "dupe" is a pointer to the earlier discussion. While not a link to exactly the same article, using "dupe" to indicate this is not uncommon here on HN.

bootload 10y ago
Thanks @grzm didn't see that one. "Dupe". Not uncommon (HNr for 10yrs in a month), inaccurate though. I wish HNs would be specific, because I interpret "dupe" as literally "duplicate" article. Better to highlight earlier, better discussion and link.
- grzm 10y ago
  Yeah, I've thought about that, too, even when marking this submission. Any suggestions for something that succinctly conveys the meaning?
  - bootload 10y ago
    @grzm, probably more scalable as a ^dupe^ flag set by users (with high enough karma) and when duplicate submission checked by Angolia search.
    - grzm 10y ago
      I'm not sure I understand. I'm looking for a succinct way of expressing "this is nearly the same submission as this other one that already has a substantial discussion: you should likely comment over there". As I understand what you've said, nothing should be done as it's not an exact dupe? I don't see how that's helpful, as what would essentially be the same discussion would be potentially split across two (or more) submission threads. Or if you're saying it should be flagged [dupe] (as opposed to having a comment note that it's a dupe), I'm not sure I see much of a meaningful distinction between a [dupe] flag and a "dupe:" comment. I suspect I'm not interpreting what you've said correctly. Thanks for your patience :)