5 ms·

Anybody have tabs on the original non-dupe thread? It doesn't appear to be anywhere near the front page, despite the fact that this is arguably the day's bigges

Anybody have tabs on the original non-dupe thread? It doesn't appear to be anywhere near the front page, despite the fact that this is arguably the day's biggest tech story, and the news is around 2 hours old.

amaccuish 8y ago
I believe it's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243 ?
jwilk 8y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027
p49k 8y ago
The PR piece by Google (currently at spot #1) is apparently what these stories are being "duped" to.
- 394549 8y ago
  > The PR piece by Google (currently at spot #1) is apparently what these stories are being "duped" to. I feel a PR piece shouldn't be the only post if there's subtext like "a security/privacy flaw" that affected millions. Also the comment thread for the Google PR post seem to be mainly about how little Google+ was used and various issues around its launch. Here's the link if anyone's interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243
  - at-fates-hands 8y ago
    This the article I saw and made a note to read after I grabbed some food. Came back and poof its gone off the front page. Thanks for posting this, you saved me a bunch of time digging for it.
  - cwkoss 8y ago
    Yeah, I think that official PR pieces shouldn't block articles which critically discuss a company's actions as "dupes".
- excalibur 8y ago
  Completely missed the top story. I was scanning for "Google+" in the title, and somehow its appearance at the end of the line threw me off :)
niftich 8y ago
Earliest trending thread about this topic was 'Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public ' [1] linking to WSJ [2]. There's a relevant moderator post [3] on the Google PR piece thread [4], which suggests that concerns about the WSJ article's paywall have resulted in a manual moderator intervention to let the Google PR piece inherit the WSJ article's rank on the page. This is unfortunate, because a company PR piece that buries the lede is hardly equivalent to a critical news report. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027 [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared-repercussions-of-disclosing-to-public-1539017194 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169719 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243

amaccuish 8y ago

I believe it's this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243 ?

jwilk 8y ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027

p49k 8y ago

The PR piece by Google (currently at spot #1) is apparently what these stories are being "duped" to.

394549 8y ago
> The PR piece by Google (currently at spot #1) is apparently what these stories are being "duped" to. I feel a PR piece shouldn't be the only post if there's subtext like "a security/privacy flaw" that affected millions. Also the comment thread for the Google PR post seem to be mainly about how little Google+ was used and various issues around its launch. Here's the link if anyone's interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243
- at-fates-hands 8y ago
  This the article I saw and made a note to read after I grabbed some food. Came back and poof its gone off the front page. Thanks for posting this, you saved me a bunch of time digging for it.
- cwkoss 8y ago
  Yeah, I think that official PR pieces shouldn't block articles which critically discuss a company's actions as "dupes".
excalibur 8y ago
Completely missed the top story. I was scanning for "Google+" in the title, and somehow its appearance at the end of the line threw me off :)

niftich 8y ago

Earliest trending thread about this topic was 'Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public ' [1] linking to WSJ [2]. There's a relevant moderator post [3] on the Google PR piece thread [4], which suggests that concerns about the WSJ article's paywall have resulted in a manual moderator intervention to let the Google PR piece inherit the WSJ article's rank on the page. This is unfortunate, because a company PR piece that buries the lede is hardly equivalent to a critical news report. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169027 [2] https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared-repercussions-of-disclosing-to-public-1539017194 https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared... [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169719 [4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243