5 ms·

Previous discussions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20012 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20012 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=78739 http://new

Previous discussions: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20012 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20012 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=78739 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=78739 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=187867 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=187867 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=859669 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=859669 All have comments.

sophacles 16y ago
Completely tangential: What is the reason for posting this reply? I think I understand the sentiment -- it gets tiring to see something repeatedly. The reason I ask tho is it comes off as a bit dismissive, but I consider re-discussing a post every 1.5 years to not be too terrible, as: a) some people may have missed the first posting b) lots of new people can now get exposure and c) we have all changed a bit in that time and have new perspectives perhaps. I know that discussion of stuff like this really helps people understand the material better, so I would personally prefer a bit of repeat on the good reads, to keep people up to speed than a keeping repeats to minimum. I can also see another side -- this is to point people to previous discussions for the reason of them benefitting from what has already been said. I agree with this motive. I just think it would be better if there was a way to present it which has a bit less dismissive of a feel to it. Anyway, I don't have a great solution in mind, more just exploring the idea. Cheers.
- rntz 16y ago
  I can only speculate at the intentions of the grandparent poster; but it's not necessarily their intention to indicate that you shouldn't repost things. It's helpful to link to old discussions of the same post so that interested HNers (like myself) can go read the comments. I know I'm often more interested in the comments than the article itself.
  - Ygor 16y ago
    Yes, I agree. And, since I got a couple of questions about how to best find this, in this example google search query: "The Bipolar Lisp Programmer site:news.ycombinator.com" returns the previous discussions right at the top. I know most of you know this already, but there are many new faces here so no harm in posting.
    - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
      Alternative (and usually more successful) search: http://searchyc.com/submissions/bipolar+lisp?sort=by_date http://searchyc.com/submissions/bipolar+lisp?sort=by_date
  - shawndumas 16y ago
    I am the original poster and I knew that it was a repeat but, honestly, my intention is to respond to up-votes so as to fine tune my participation in the HN community to maximize your enjoyment of my presence here. In short; I am attempting to be Constructive[1] and am using up-votes to guide my attempt. ---- [1]: http://xkcd.com/810/ http://xkcd.com/810/
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  Upvoted, because it's a pertinent question. a. Yes, it's tiring to see the same thing repeated. As a hacker, repetition, and hence wasting time, is something I try to avoid. b. Yes, it's nice to present classic items to the newer members of the community. That's of value c. Without reference to the previous discussions the same points will be made over and over again. See item (a) above. d. There is value in the previous discussions. It would be a shame to see it wasted. In short, I don't have a problem with things being reposted occasionally, but I'd like to leverage the existing backlog of discussions. Regarding sounding dismissive: e. I don't have time to word-craft things endlessly, and sometimes I don't get the nuances right. It takes me almost no time to create the cross-references - the time is consumed in trying not to offend people. Sometimes there's not enough time for both.
  - sophacles 16y ago
    a. Yes, it's tiring to see the same thing repeated. As a hacker, repetition, and hence wasting time, is something I try to avoid. I concur with this in general, but also suggest that repetition is a cornerstone of learning. Many ideas must be revisited several times before full understanding takes effect. This specific type of repetition is not wasteful repetition. It may not be you job to teach people, but I highly doubt getting in the way of others gaining understanding is your goal either. e. I don't have time to word-craft things endlessly, and sometimes I don't get the nuances right. It takes me almost no time to create the cross-references - the time is consumed in trying not to offend people. Sometimes there's not enough time for both. Fair enough. Seeing as how you are very frequently the person who posts the cross references (which btw, I really appreciate) I would like to propose this as a template for future "this is a repeat" posts (I certainly hope other jump in if there is a better way of putting it than my template): This article is something of a classic here on HN. There have been some good discussions on it previously (see below). The comments in those articles may help provide some perspective for the discussion here. $LINKS
    - vog 16y ago
      > This specific type of repetition is not wasteful repetition. If the repetition doesn't link to previous discussions, it definitely is wasteful. It's like adding a comment without having at least skimmed through the already existing comments.
- khafra 16y ago
  > it comes off as a bit dismissive The presentation of previous discussions was as neutral, factual, and to-the-point as I can imagine; I don't see any dismissiveness or sentiment other than what I injected into it from my experience dealing with reposts on forums for a decade or so. I see the RoG duplicate detection as serving the historian function you touched on admirably, without needing further padding in politeness.
- melling 16y ago
  Isn't is useful to have all prior discussions linked? Ideally, it wouldn't be a post, but a separate part of the message, shown on the side.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- lwhi 16y ago
  Why are there so many people discussing the way people comment? .. if anything this is what's killing hacker news. There's only so much discussion, about discussion, a person can reasonably take :P
georgecmu 16y ago
I wonder if the HN engine has ability to merge discussions. It would be nice to flag posts as duplicates, but not have the comments and discussions disappear into oblivion.
- Pyrodogg 16y ago
  Even if it didn't merge the discussions having some automatic indicator of 'Related Discussions' ala Reddit would be fantastic.
- agentultra 16y ago
  Upvoted. If not 'merge' (hard), at least detect the duplicate and automatically add links to the previous discussions and save @RiderOfGiraffes from doing it manually. :)
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    I have a robot that used to do that, but it provoked an extremely strong negative reaction from a sizeable proportion of the community. I discontinued its use, and after some of the comments, I'm reluctant to bring it back.
    - russell 16y ago
      It sounds useful, but I fear that new comments would be buried in the old comments, particularly if old comments retained their points in determining the ranking.
    - agentultra 16y ago
      Doing it in the comments with a bot.. yeah, I can see why that might've struck a nerve. But it's the old usenet problem. FAQs I don't think would work here though. I was thinking more as a collapsable "see also" section added only to duplicate articles. Update Added reference to usenet.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
jaredmck 16y ago
While I'm quite glad you post the previous discussions, as I wasn't around HN when these were first posted - do you think "All have comments." is necessary? My initial thought upon seeing this is that you are trying to imply that we shouldn't comment in this thread since the topic has been worn out; while subsequent comments clarified that this is not your intent or the community's wish, I can't help but think that taking out the "All have comments" would better show what you're trying to do here- since if the previous discussions don't have comments you don't usually post them (from what i can tell)? Just a suggestion.
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  And yet other people complain if I put links to previous submissions without saying whether they have discussions or not. I think there is value in the cross-linking even if the other submissions don't have discussion. That makes it necessary to remark on whether there is any or not. Perhaps I'm trying to make HN something it isn't. Perhaps it would be better to consider it like twitter and simply ignore the past discussion and submissions. If that were the case I, for one, wouldn't hang around any longer, because the "new" stuff feels more and more just like the old stuff re-submitted or re-hashed. Without back references I feel that people wouldn't be as keen to find genuinely new material. As it is, there seems to be more "news" than "hacker news".
  - jaredmck 16y ago
    I like that the past discussion and submissions are considered- but I'm not sure that the cross-posting is actually discouraging the posting of material that isn't genuinely new? Seems like it tends to encourage discussion in the new thread, rather than having everyone first read the old stuff and then only mention any new thoughts or things which might be more relevant now in the new thread. That something hasn't been previously discussed is more a function of it being new, most of the time. I'd love to encourage people to post things which are not necessarily new but have never been discussed on HN...that'd be ideal. Otherwise, it's more likely that only time-sensitive items will truly be "new" in this sense to HN discussions. What's a good example of "hacker news" vs. merely "news"?

sophacles 16y ago

Completely tangential: What is the reason for posting this reply? I think I understand the sentiment -- it gets tiring to see something repeatedly. The reason I ask tho is it comes off as a bit dismissive, but I consider re-discussing a post every 1.5 years to not be too terrible, as: a) some people may have missed the first posting b) lots of new people can now get exposure and c) we have all changed a bit in that time and have new perspectives perhaps. I know that discussion of stuff like this really helps people understand the material better, so I would personally prefer a bit of repeat on the good reads, to keep people up to speed than a keeping repeats to minimum. I can also see another side -- this is to point people to previous discussions for the reason of them benefitting from what has already been said. I agree with this motive. I just think it would be better if there was a way to present it which has a bit less dismissive of a feel to it. Anyway, I don't have a great solution in mind, more just exploring the idea. Cheers.

rntz 16y ago
I can only speculate at the intentions of the grandparent poster; but it's not necessarily their intention to indicate that you shouldn't repost things. It's helpful to link to old discussions of the same post so that interested HNers (like myself) can go read the comments. I know I'm often more interested in the comments than the article itself.
- Ygor 16y ago
  Yes, I agree. And, since I got a couple of questions about how to best find this, in this example google search query: "The Bipolar Lisp Programmer site:news.ycombinator.com" returns the previous discussions right at the top. I know most of you know this already, but there are many new faces here so no harm in posting.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
    Alternative (and usually more successful) search: http://searchyc.com/submissions/bipolar+lisp?sort=by_date http://searchyc.com/submissions/bipolar+lisp?sort=by_date
- shawndumas 16y ago
  I am the original poster and I knew that it was a repeat but, honestly, my intention is to respond to up-votes so as to fine tune my participation in the HN community to maximize your enjoyment of my presence here. In short; I am attempting to be Constructive[1] and am using up-votes to guide my attempt. ---- [1]: http://xkcd.com/810/ http://xkcd.com/810/
RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
Upvoted, because it's a pertinent question. a. Yes, it's tiring to see the same thing repeated. As a hacker, repetition, and hence wasting time, is something I try to avoid. b. Yes, it's nice to present classic items to the newer members of the community. That's of value c. Without reference to the previous discussions the same points will be made over and over again. See item (a) above. d. There is value in the previous discussions. It would be a shame to see it wasted. In short, I don't have a problem with things being reposted occasionally, but I'd like to leverage the existing backlog of discussions. Regarding sounding dismissive: e. I don't have time to word-craft things endlessly, and sometimes I don't get the nuances right. It takes me almost no time to create the cross-references - the time is consumed in trying not to offend people. Sometimes there's not enough time for both.
- sophacles 16y ago
  a. Yes, it's tiring to see the same thing repeated. As a hacker, repetition, and hence wasting time, is something I try to avoid. I concur with this in general, but also suggest that repetition is a cornerstone of learning. Many ideas must be revisited several times before full understanding takes effect. This specific type of repetition is not wasteful repetition. It may not be you job to teach people, but I highly doubt getting in the way of others gaining understanding is your goal either. e. I don't have time to word-craft things endlessly, and sometimes I don't get the nuances right. It takes me almost no time to create the cross-references - the time is consumed in trying not to offend people. Sometimes there's not enough time for both. Fair enough. Seeing as how you are very frequently the person who posts the cross references (which btw, I really appreciate) I would like to propose this as a template for future "this is a repeat" posts (I certainly hope other jump in if there is a better way of putting it than my template): This article is something of a classic here on HN. There have been some good discussions on it previously (see below). The comments in those articles may help provide some perspective for the discussion here. $LINKS
  - vog 16y ago
    > This specific type of repetition is not wasteful repetition. If the repetition doesn't link to previous discussions, it definitely is wasteful. It's like adding a comment without having at least skimmed through the already existing comments.
khafra 16y ago
> it comes off as a bit dismissive The presentation of previous discussions was as neutral, factual, and to-the-point as I can imagine; I don't see any dismissiveness or sentiment other than what I injected into it from my experience dealing with reposts on forums for a decade or so. I see the RoG duplicate detection as serving the historian function you touched on admirably, without needing further padding in politeness.
melling 16y ago
Isn't is useful to have all prior discussions linked? Ideally, it wouldn't be a post, but a separate part of the message, shown on the side.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
lwhi 16y ago
Why are there so many people discussing the way people comment? .. if anything this is what's killing hacker news. There's only so much discussion, about discussion, a person can reasonably take :P

georgecmu 16y ago

I wonder if the HN engine has ability to merge discussions. It would be nice to flag posts as duplicates, but not have the comments and discussions disappear into oblivion.

Pyrodogg 16y ago
Even if it didn't merge the discussions having some automatic indicator of 'Related Discussions' ala Reddit would be fantastic.
agentultra 16y ago
Upvoted. If not 'merge' (hard), at least detect the duplicate and automatically add links to the previous discussions and save @RiderOfGiraffes from doing it manually. :)
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
  I have a robot that used to do that, but it provoked an extremely strong negative reaction from a sizeable proportion of the community. I discontinued its use, and after some of the comments, I'm reluctant to bring it back.
  - russell 16y ago
    It sounds useful, but I fear that new comments would be buried in the old comments, particularly if old comments retained their points in determining the ranking.
  - agentultra 16y ago
    Doing it in the comments with a bot.. yeah, I can see why that might've struck a nerve. But it's the old usenet problem. FAQs I don't think would work here though. I was thinking more as a collapsable "see also" section added only to duplicate articles. Update Added reference to usenet.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

jaredmck 16y ago

While I'm quite glad you post the previous discussions, as I wasn't around HN when these were first posted - do you think "All have comments." is necessary? My initial thought upon seeing this is that you are trying to imply that we shouldn't comment in this thread since the topic has been worn out; while subsequent comments clarified that this is not your intent or the community's wish, I can't help but think that taking out the "All have comments" would better show what you're trying to do here- since if the previous discussions don't have comments you don't usually post them (from what i can tell)? Just a suggestion.

RiderOfGiraffes 16y ago
And yet other people complain if I put links to previous submissions without saying whether they have discussions or not. I think there is value in the cross-linking even if the other submissions don't have discussion. That makes it necessary to remark on whether there is any or not. Perhaps I'm trying to make HN something it isn't. Perhaps it would be better to consider it like twitter and simply ignore the past discussion and submissions. If that were the case I, for one, wouldn't hang around any longer, because the "new" stuff feels more and more just like the old stuff re-submitted or re-hashed. Without back references I feel that people wouldn't be as keen to find genuinely new material. As it is, there seems to be more "news" than "hacker news".
- jaredmck 16y ago
  I like that the past discussion and submissions are considered- but I'm not sure that the cross-posting is actually discouraging the posting of material that isn't genuinely new? Seems like it tends to encourage discussion in the new thread, rather than having everyone first read the old stuff and then only mention any new thoughts or things which might be more relevant now in the new thread. That something hasn't been previously discussed is more a function of it being new, most of the time. I'd love to encourage people to post things which are not necessarily new but have never been discussed on HN...that'd be ideal. Otherwise, it's more likely that only time-sensitive items will truly be "new" in this sense to HN discussions. What's a good example of "hacker news" vs. merely "news"?