5 ms·

Option not listed: I just flag anything that appears on the front page if another, better post about the same thing is also on the front page. If lots of peop

Option not listed: I just flag anything that appears on the front page if another, better post about the same thing is also on the front page. If lots of people did this, then we would quickly wind up with exactly one post about a topic on the front page, so people's discussion would mostly go onto that post. Problem easily solved.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
There is too much discussion that spreads across stories though. The idea of merging sounds, uh, dicey, but it would avoid having fledgling discussions from being lost or preemptively killed.
- mquander 15y ago
  I think the only reason there's a bunch of discussion that spreads across stories is because there are frequently duplicates that sit on the front page for ages. If they were quickly flagged off the front page, I doubt they would attract a significant portion of comments.
inportb 15y ago
+ If lots of people did this, then we would quickly wind up with exactly | one post about a topic on the front page, so people's discussion would + mostly go onto that post. If lots of people did this, then we would quickly wind up with no posts about a topic on the front page, because we often disagree about what constitutes "better."
- Ronkdar 15y ago
  I flag repeats based on who submitted first. First come, first serve. Every next one I see I flag.
dpritchett 15y ago
Reducing every angle of a story to a single thread isn't going to help matters. To take this week's AirBnB PR uproar as an example, many of the front page posts on the issue represent different facets of the story. Sure, only one link to the original blog complaint from the renter is necessary. Subsequent posts highlighting the story's path from HN to TechCrunch to a TechCrunch-hosted official response to the Financial Times and other news outlets are providing useful context here. The story has moved beyond the facts of the initial incident and onwards to its impact on startups, fundraising, disrupting regulated industries, and more. There's a lot to talk about here and it doesn't all belong on one thread.
- epenn 15y ago
  I think that's different than what the OP is talking about though. If different stories are providing updates to an earlier story or original information of some other kind that's fine. If there are multiple links from different sources that are duplicating the same basic information then it creates unnecessary redundancy and splinters the discussion.

drivebyacct2 15y ago

There is too much discussion that spreads across stories though. The idea of merging sounds, uh, dicey, but it would avoid having fledgling discussions from being lost or preemptively killed.

mquander 15y ago
I think the only reason there's a bunch of discussion that spreads across stories is because there are frequently duplicates that sit on the front page for ages. If they were quickly flagged off the front page, I doubt they would attract a significant portion of comments.

inportb 15y ago

+ If lots of people did this, then we would quickly wind up with exactly | one post about a topic on the front page, so people's discussion would + mostly go onto that post. If lots of people did this, then we would quickly wind up with no posts about a topic on the front page, because we often disagree about what constitutes "better."

Ronkdar 15y ago
I flag repeats based on who submitted first. First come, first serve. Every next one I see I flag.

dpritchett 15y ago

Reducing every angle of a story to a single thread isn't going to help matters. To take this week's AirBnB PR uproar as an example, many of the front page posts on the issue represent different facets of the story. Sure, only one link to the original blog complaint from the renter is necessary. Subsequent posts highlighting the story's path from HN to TechCrunch to a TechCrunch-hosted official response to the Financial Times and other news outlets are providing useful context here. The story has moved beyond the facts of the initial incident and onwards to its impact on startups, fundraising, disrupting regulated industries, and more. There's a lot to talk about here and it doesn't all belong on one thread.

epenn 15y ago
I think that's different than what the OP is talking about though. If different stories are providing updates to an earlier story or original information of some other kind that's fine. If there are multiple links from different sources that are duplicating the same basic information then it creates unnecessary redundancy and splinters the discussion.