5 ms·

I am really hesitating to mention this but maybe the discussion could help find a solution. The submitter clearly pasted the correct URL and got a link to the

I am really hesitating to mention this but maybe the discussion could help find a solution. The submitter clearly pasted the correct URL and got a link to the original submission (1311 days ago) but went ahead and added "?" to the end of the url to fool the dup filter and submitted again. It is not even a case of two different urls to the same dynamically generated page! I don't want to rush to accusation of karma whoring because maybe there is a value in reposting old article that some people might have not seen ... But something feels sub-optimal! Maybe an automatic "best of this week in HN" page that shows the highest rated stories from a few years back that people can casually check for older interesting articles?

StavrosK 16y ago
I see no problem with this, the original submission is 3.5 years old. That's quite a long time to be complaining of reposts.
- patrickas 16y ago
  Yes I can see the value of reposting older submission, I think my main discomfort is having to add random characters to the urls in order to fool the dup detector so that people can post an old article again. If the community agrees there is value in reposting old articles, maybe change the dupe detector to allow reposting old articles after N days. Since that would become part of the system (instead of working around it), it would become easier to link old and new submissions for example... I just don't like it when one has to work against the system to do something if the community seems to feel that something is worth doing.
  - StavrosK 16y ago
    Ah, I see what you mean. It is rather inelegant, but not that big of a deal, in my opinion...
JoelMcCracken 16y ago
HN is about the articles, certainly, but also about the users and their comments. I would think that time having passed would justify seeing what new comments time may have brought.
jluxenberg 16y ago
Last time I checked, the de-dup filter only looks at article that are less than x days old. (Not sure what the specific "x" is.)
- patrickas 16y ago
  Oh good idea! (see my other reply), unfortunately 3.5 years seems to still be disallowed, that's why the submitter had to add '?' to the url.

StavrosK 16y ago

I see no problem with this, the original submission is 3.5 years old. That's quite a long time to be complaining of reposts.

patrickas 16y ago
Yes I can see the value of reposting older submission, I think my main discomfort is having to add random characters to the urls in order to fool the dup detector so that people can post an old article again. If the community agrees there is value in reposting old articles, maybe change the dupe detector to allow reposting old articles after N days. Since that would become part of the system (instead of working around it), it would become easier to link old and new submissions for example... I just don't like it when one has to work against the system to do something if the community seems to feel that something is worth doing.
- StavrosK 16y ago
  Ah, I see what you mean. It is rather inelegant, but not that big of a deal, in my opinion...

JoelMcCracken 16y ago

HN is about the articles, certainly, but also about the users and their comments. I would think that time having passed would justify seeing what new comments time may have brought.

jluxenberg 16y ago

Last time I checked, the de-dup filter only looks at article that are less than x days old. (Not sure what the specific "x" is.)

patrickas 16y ago
Oh good idea! (see my other reply), unfortunately 3.5 years seems to still be disallowed, that's why the submitter had to add '?' to the url.