5 ms·

>>Your comment about the paywall is explicitly off-topic That seems harsh. If there's a paywalled article posted then it's fair of him to say that he can't acc

>>Your comment about the paywall is explicitly off-topic That seems harsh. If there's a paywalled article posted then it's fair of him to say that he can't access it because it's paywalled. If you have an issue with that then you should have (an issue with the HN rules and whether they should or) shouldn't allow paywalled sites/articles to be posted.

AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
I think it is a bit harsh. Most of the initial commenters couldn't read the article due to paywall, that seems very on-topic. http://archive.is/l5uLn http://archive.is/l5uLn works well to paywall-bypass. > If you have an issue with that then you should have HN shouldn't allow paywalled sites/articles to be posted. I'm a bit torn about that. These are good articles, they should be posted/discussed. You could link to things like the paywall bypass link I sent instead, but, there are infinite variations of those so you could end up with infinite threads about the same article which seems like a poor solution.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- rabidonrails 9y ago
  I'm not sure you read my comment...we are saying the same thing.
  - AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
    I was trying to agree with you :)
chrisseaton 9y ago
> That seems harsh. I'm not giving my opinion on it - I'm telling they why they've been down voted, and this is it. > If there's a paywalled article posted then it's fair of him to say that he can't access it because it's paywalled. But the HN rules say that it isn't ok for them to post a comment saying that. > If you have an issue with that then you should have HN shouldn't allow paywalled sites/articles to be posted. No the HN rules say it's ok to post paywalled articles. They then also say it's not ok to post comments complaining about it. I think you're confusing that I'm telling you my personal opinion. I'm not - I'm quoting the HN rules.
- 35bge57dtjku 9y ago
  How is what you're saying any more on topic (the original topic)?
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    Look I haven't downvoted them! They asked why they may have been downvoted, and I'm explaining why people may have done that so they know how the site works. We're not supposed to comment about comment voting at all, but if nobody explained that nobody would know!
chrisseaton 9y ago
> (this comment was a reponse to the initial comment by chrisseaton which has since been removed.) I haven't removed any comment at all. The quote you're replying to is still in my comment. And I can't have edited after you posted that comment, because HN doesn't apply comments that have been replied to to be edited.
- rabidonrails 9y ago
  my fault, un-edited.
- Stratoscope 9y ago
  > I can't have edited after you posted that comment, because HN doesn't apply [allow?] comments that have been replied to to be edited. Is that true? I'm pretty sure I have edited comments after they have been replied to, as long as it was within the two-hour edit window. But I could be remembering wrong. Want to try editing your comment now that it has one or more replies and see what happens? Edit: Testing an edit after this comment has been replied to. Indeed it can be edited.
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    Well whatever I don't edit my comments after they've been replied to. And it wouldn't make sense to have edited because I've repeated the same information several times in replies to my replies.
    - Stratoscope 9y ago
      I wasn't suggesting that you should edit your comments (except for that one as a test). :-) Your note about HN not allowing edits got me wondering, so I was curious to verify it one way or another. Since you replied to my previous comment, I did a test edit on it and indeed editing was allowed. Mystery solved!
      - chrisseaton 9y ago
        Maybe I was thinking of the rules for deletion.

AdamJacobMuller 9y ago

I think it is a bit harsh. Most of the initial commenters couldn't read the article due to paywall, that seems very on-topic. http://archive.is/l5uLn http://archive.is/l5uLn works well to paywall-bypass. > If you have an issue with that then you should have HN shouldn't allow paywalled sites/articles to be posted. I'm a bit torn about that. These are good articles, they should be posted/discussed. You could link to things like the paywall bypass link I sent instead, but, there are infinite variations of those so you could end up with infinite threads about the same article which seems like a poor solution.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rabidonrails 9y ago
I'm not sure you read my comment...we are saying the same thing.
- AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
  I was trying to agree with you :)

chrisseaton 9y ago

> That seems harsh. I'm not giving my opinion on it - I'm telling they why they've been down voted, and this is it. > If there's a paywalled article posted then it's fair of him to say that he can't access it because it's paywalled. But the HN rules say that it isn't ok for them to post a comment saying that. > If you have an issue with that then you should have HN shouldn't allow paywalled sites/articles to be posted. No the HN rules say it's ok to post paywalled articles. They then also say it's not ok to post comments complaining about it. I think you're confusing that I'm telling you my personal opinion. I'm not - I'm quoting the HN rules.

35bge57dtjku 9y ago
How is what you're saying any more on topic (the original topic)?
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  Look I haven't downvoted them! They asked why they may have been downvoted, and I'm explaining why people may have done that so they know how the site works. We're not supposed to comment about comment voting at all, but if nobody explained that nobody would know!

chrisseaton 9y ago

> (this comment was a reponse to the initial comment by chrisseaton which has since been removed.) I haven't removed any comment at all. The quote you're replying to is still in my comment. And I can't have edited after you posted that comment, because HN doesn't apply comments that have been replied to to be edited.

rabidonrails 9y ago
my fault, un-edited.
Stratoscope 9y ago
> I can't have edited after you posted that comment, because HN doesn't apply [allow?] comments that have been replied to to be edited. Is that true? I'm pretty sure I have edited comments after they have been replied to, as long as it was within the two-hour edit window. But I could be remembering wrong. Want to try editing your comment now that it has one or more replies and see what happens? Edit: Testing an edit after this comment has been replied to. Indeed it can be edited.
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  Well whatever I don't edit my comments after they've been replied to. And it wouldn't make sense to have edited because I've repeated the same information several times in replies to my replies.
  - Stratoscope 9y ago
    I wasn't suggesting that you should edit your comments (except for that one as a test). :-) Your note about HN not allowing edits got me wondering, so I was curious to verify it one way or another. Since you replied to my previous comment, I did a test edit on it and indeed editing was allowed. Mystery solved!
    - chrisseaton 9y ago
      Maybe I was thinking of the rules for deletion.