5 ms·

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

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

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