3 ms·

Dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36753161 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36753161

jsnell 3y ago
That had no comments and one upvote. It's totally fine to resubmit articles that didn't get significant attention the first time.
- nubinetwork 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - yabbs 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. We're trying for something else here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - jsnell 3y ago
    If you continue antagonizing people with your fake dupe claims and have a large proportion of your posts flashed, there's a chance that the entire account gets shadowbanned. And then most people won't see the subset of posts where you have a legit point either. A small number of reposts is not only permitted by the rules of the doors, it is very often explicitly encouraged by the mods. Railing against that is really not productive, especially since those reposts are often some of the very best posts to the site.
dang 3y ago
HN's policy about dupes has been consistent for many years (it goes back to pg, who started the site and ran it for the first 8 years or so), so I hope it's ok if I explain it a bit. On HN, a post only counts as a dupe if the same story has had significant attention in the last year or so. If it hasn't had significant attention yet, or if it has, but more than a year or so ago, then reposts are fine. The reason is that we want to give good stories multiple cracks at the bat, i.e. multiple chances at getting attention. Otherwise it's too random—randomness is a strong factor in what does or doesn't get noticed on the /newest page and we want to even that out over time. Pointing out dupes in HN comments is great, but only if you link to a previous post that has had significant attention in the last year or so. Otherwise HN users will get irritated when they click on a link and are taken to a previous submission that didn't get any activity. I hope that makes sense! By the way, some of the posts you've flagged as dupes were actually invited reposts—we comb through old submissions looking for good articles that didn't get noticed the first (or second, or third) time around, and invite one of the previous submitters to submit it again. Invited reposts go into the second-chance pool (https://news.ycombinator.com/pool https://news.ycombinator.com/pool, explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308), so they get a random placement on HN's front page. This is another device we came up with for trying to mitigate the randomness of /newest. We want to maximize the opportunity for the best (for HN) articles to get in front of the community. At that point, readers can make up their own minds if the article is of interest or not.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Adding to this ... ... as I frequently point out both dupes and previous discussions, I'll make a point of noting that the latter are permitted, especially where those are near the threshold of recency, or where previous submissions didn't cross the "significant discussion" threshold. I take that at about 20 comments, though I'm not aware of an official stance.

That had no comments and one upvote. It's totally fine to resubmit articles that didn't get significant attention the first time.

nubinetwork 3y ago
[flagged]
- yabbs 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. We're trying for something else here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jsnell 3y ago
  If you continue antagonizing people with your fake dupe claims and have a large proportion of your posts flashed, there's a chance that the entire account gets shadowbanned. And then most people won't see the subset of posts where you have a legit point either. A small number of reposts is not only permitted by the rules of the doors, it is very often explicitly encouraged by the mods. Railing against that is really not productive, especially since those reposts are often some of the very best posts to the site.

dang 3y ago

HN's policy about dupes has been consistent for many years (it goes back to pg, who started the site and ran it for the first 8 years or so), so I hope it's ok if I explain it a bit. On HN, a post only counts as a dupe if the same story has had significant attention in the last year or so. If it hasn't had significant attention yet, or if it has, but more than a year or so ago, then reposts are fine. The reason is that we want to give good stories multiple cracks at the bat, i.e. multiple chances at getting attention. Otherwise it's too random—randomness is a strong factor in what does or doesn't get noticed on the /newest page and we want to even that out over time. Pointing out dupes in HN comments is great, but only if you link to a previous post that has had significant attention in the last year or so. Otherwise HN users will get irritated when they click on a link and are taken to a previous submission that didn't get any activity. I hope that makes sense! By the way, some of the posts you've flagged as dupes were actually invited reposts—we comb through old submissions looking for good articles that didn't get noticed the first (or second, or third) time around, and invite one of the previous submitters to submit it again. Invited reposts go into the second-chance pool (https://news.ycombinator.com/pool https://news.ycombinator.com/pool, explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308), so they get a random placement on HN's front page. This is another device we came up with for trying to mitigate the randomness of /newest. We want to maximize the opportunity for the best (for HN) articles to get in front of the community. At that point, readers can make up their own minds if the article is of interest or not.

dredmorbius 3y ago
Adding to this ... ... as I frequently point out both dupes and previous discussions, I'll make a point of noting that the latter are permitted, especially where those are near the threshold of recency, or where previous submissions didn't cross the "significant discussion" threshold. I take that at about 20 comments, though I'm not aware of an official stance.