3 ms·

Amazing how quickly this fell off the front page. I get that it's Daily Mail, but there's still an important conversation to have here, right?

sys_64738 7y ago
The conversation is that you shouldn't click Daily Mail links.
- dang 7y ago
  On HN, we go by article quality, not site quality. No major media site is reliably good, and even the reliably bad ones sometimes produce a good-for-HN article, i.e. one that can support intellectually curious discussion. I wouldn't say that about this post though. The topic is not only divisive, but has been covered many times before, and curiosity withers under repetition. But the call should be about the article, not the site. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%20%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
  - masonic 7y ago
    On HN, we go by article quality, not site quality But you do ban entire sites[1] without explanation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=ancient-origins.net https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=ancient-origins.net
    - dang 7y ago
      Of course. If we didn't, HN would be a spam site. Explanations are always available when people ask, and we answer questions like this every day. We banned the site you linked to because promotional accounts have been spamming HN with dozens of submissions from it, and because it appears to be mostly blogspam, i.e. lifted from other sources. I just did a spot check, and indeed the most recent submission (https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/medieval-ship-0013178 https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/med...) was lifted from https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/newport-medieval-ship-opening-date-17288380 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/newport-mediev.... HN readers expect us to ban that kind of thing. This isn't the class of sites I was talking about above (note the word "major").
dang 7y ago
Users flagged it. That is probably some combination of (1) the title being baity and/or misleading, (2) the topic having had many thorough discussions in the past, and (3) some people's feelings about the publication.

sys_64738 7y ago

The conversation is that you shouldn't click Daily Mail links.

dang 7y ago
On HN, we go by article quality, not site quality. No major media site is reliably good, and even the reliably bad ones sometimes produce a good-for-HN article, i.e. one that can support intellectually curious discussion. I wouldn't say that about this post though. The topic is not only divisive, but has been covered many times before, and curiosity withers under repetition. But the call should be about the article, not the site. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=by%3Adang%20%20%22article%20quality%22%20%22site%20quality%22&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- masonic 7y ago
  On HN, we go by article quality, not site quality But you do ban entire sites[1] without explanation. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=ancient-origins.net https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=ancient-origins.net
  - dang 7y ago
    Of course. If we didn't, HN would be a spam site. Explanations are always available when people ask, and we answer questions like this every day. We banned the site you linked to because promotional accounts have been spamming HN with dozens of submissions from it, and because it appears to be mostly blogspam, i.e. lifted from other sources. I just did a spot check, and indeed the most recent submission (https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/medieval-ship-0013178 https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/med...) was lifted from https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/newport-medieval-ship-opening-date-17288380 https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/newport-mediev.... HN readers expect us to ban that kind of thing. This isn't the class of sites I was talking about above (note the word "major").

dang 7y ago

Users flagged it. That is probably some combination of (1) the title being baity and/or misleading, (2) the topic having had many thorough discussions in the past, and (3) some people's feelings about the publication.