5 ms·

The report was the basis for this article and discussion yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19570378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19570378.

by sctb 8y ago

The report was the basis for this article and discussion yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19570378 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19570378. From Hacker News' perspective, since the report itself was prominently linked in the article and its contents were discussed directly in the thread many times, it qualifies as a duplicate.

dredmorbius 8y ago
You'd just noted and moved comments to this submission from another, which is confusing. (emailed to hn@ also)
- Rooster61 8y ago
  Agreed, an article based on the report is not the same as the actual report. Not to mention it pulled this off the front page, where it absolutely should be considering the traffic this issue has been garnering.
dmix 8y ago
How is that the same? The BBC article doesn't contain even 20% of the information as the full report (including multiple charts).
- sctb 8y ago
  You're absolutely right, it's not the same (in this sense “duplicate” is a misnomer—or at least should be applied to the thread or topic and not the submitted link).
  - Rooster61 8y ago
    If that's the case, it would be appreciated if this was moved back, or at least re-posted. It appears worthy of being visible based on the amount of discussion it generated in a short time. Moving it to this thread effectively threw a bucket on the fire. This document is a big deal.
    - sctb 8y ago
      OK! We've put it back.
      - Rooster61 8y ago
        Err...Not quite, its still under the poster of the bbc article, but the effort is appreciated nonetheless. You guys rock. :)
makomk 8y ago
The report wasn't prominently linked in that BBC article when it was posted here yesterday, because it hadn't been released yet.[1] It was edited into the article at around the same time the direct link was posted to HN. Also, all of the discussion of its contents on that thread seems to have happened after the comment complaining about this thread being marked as a dupe of it. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190404163122/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47812225 https://web.archive.org/web/20190404163122/https://www.bbc.c...

by sctb 8y ago

dredmorbius 8y ago

You'd just noted and moved comments to this submission from another, which is confusing. (emailed to hn@ also)

Rooster61 8y ago
Agreed, an article based on the report is not the same as the actual report. Not to mention it pulled this off the front page, where it absolutely should be considering the traffic this issue has been garnering.

dmix 8y ago

How is that the same? The BBC article doesn't contain even 20% of the information as the full report (including multiple charts).

sctb 8y ago
You're absolutely right, it's not the same (in this sense “duplicate” is a misnomer—or at least should be applied to the thread or topic and not the submitted link).
- Rooster61 8y ago
  If that's the case, it would be appreciated if this was moved back, or at least re-posted. It appears worthy of being visible based on the amount of discussion it generated in a short time. Moving it to this thread effectively threw a bucket on the fire. This document is a big deal.
  - sctb 8y ago
    OK! We've put it back.
    - Rooster61 8y ago
      Err...Not quite, its still under the poster of the bbc article, but the effort is appreciated nonetheless. You guys rock. :)

makomk 8y ago

The report wasn't prominently linked in that BBC article when it was posted here yesterday, because it hadn't been released yet.[1] It was edited into the article at around the same time the direct link was posted to HN. Also, all of the discussion of its contents on that thread seems to have happened after the comment complaining about this thread being marked as a dupe of it. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20190404163122/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47812225 https://web.archive.org/web/20190404163122/https://www.bbc.c...