3 ms·

A request to HN users: do not upvote based on the article source alone, especially if you have already seen this. This article is 6 years old, and I would be su

A request to HN users: do not upvote based on the article source alone, especially if you have already seen this. This article is 6 years old, and I would be surprised to discover that a significant number of HNers have not yet read the essay (which is excellent by the way, if you really haven't read it yet). If enough new users found upvote-worthy value from the article being submitted this time, then that's great, and the front page ranking is well-deserved. My concern is that given the age of the article, it will remain on the front page despite most users having already read it years ago, without the community really gaining any new value from it.

alifaziz 16y ago
Written to read and reread. What's wrong with that. After 6 years our mind might already loaded and bloated with many things. That's why the 'refresh' button is there.
- smackay 16y ago
  I can see real value in re-submitting this if there are a series of submissions or comments that shows this is a current topic of interest but it would be a shame if HN became more like TV with endless repeats. Having said that I think classic Paul Graham essays such as The Submarine should be re-read at least once per year and perhaps more often than that.
drtse4 16y ago
Agreed, i'm not saying that this is true in this particular case, but posting random old pg essay smells just like an attempt to earn some easy karma. Personally, even if i didn't already read a particular essay, seeing the date i would not post it here. As a side note, the duplicate finder algorithm should not catch these?
- dkokelley 16y ago
  I searched and it looks like this one was either never submitted, unless it was so old that it was removed automatically.
known 16y ago
If I click on comments it should automatically upvote.
- Retric 16y ago
  If I want to flag I need to first click on comments.
bhavin 16y ago
I tried to discuss something similar yesterday, with no response: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2008147 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2008147
- dkokelley 16y ago
  Brand equity is a powerful and measurable force, and it must be earned. If Apple were to release a new tablet, everyone would listen. The same is not true of the numerous other tablets being released. Apple earned this reputation by delivering a (series of) remarkable product(s). This is similar to my original point, but not quite the same. pg's essays are great reads, and whenever a new one is submitted I (along with most HNers) will read it, just because of the source. I trust that the essays are worth my time, because that's what my previous experience with pg's essays is. The difference is that I don't see how the HN community is gaining much additional value from recycling content.
guylhem 16y ago
I for one hadn't read it yet (or I may have alzeihmer :-) I've read some others essays from PG but not that one. It's interesting and I will upvote it to recommand to others who may also have missed it. But I agree with you, do not upvote on the source alone. Promoting single thought seems wrong to me.

alifaziz 16y ago

Written to read and reread. What's wrong with that. After 6 years our mind might already loaded and bloated with many things. That's why the 'refresh' button is there.

smackay 16y ago
I can see real value in re-submitting this if there are a series of submissions or comments that shows this is a current topic of interest but it would be a shame if HN became more like TV with endless repeats. Having said that I think classic Paul Graham essays such as The Submarine should be re-read at least once per year and perhaps more often than that.

drtse4 16y ago

Agreed, i'm not saying that this is true in this particular case, but posting random old pg essay smells just like an attempt to earn some easy karma. Personally, even if i didn't already read a particular essay, seeing the date i would not post it here. As a side note, the duplicate finder algorithm should not catch these?

dkokelley 16y ago
I searched and it looks like this one was either never submitted, unless it was so old that it was removed automatically.

known 16y ago

If I click on comments it should automatically upvote.

Retric 16y ago
If I want to flag I need to first click on comments.

bhavin 16y ago

I tried to discuss something similar yesterday, with no response: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2008147 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2008147

dkokelley 16y ago
Brand equity is a powerful and measurable force, and it must be earned. If Apple were to release a new tablet, everyone would listen. The same is not true of the numerous other tablets being released. Apple earned this reputation by delivering a (series of) remarkable product(s). This is similar to my original point, but not quite the same. pg's essays are great reads, and whenever a new one is submitted I (along with most HNers) will read it, just because of the source. I trust that the essays are worth my time, because that's what my previous experience with pg's essays is. The difference is that I don't see how the HN community is gaining much additional value from recycling content.

guylhem 16y ago

I for one hadn't read it yet (or I may have alzeihmer :-) I've read some others essays from PG but not that one. It's interesting and I will upvote it to recommand to others who may also have missed it. But I agree with you, do not upvote on the source alone. Promoting single thought seems wrong to me.