4 ms·

I can only read the first paragraph using your link, so the HN guidelines need updating. The original "thereaderapp" link is much better, and I've frequently se

I can only read the first paragraph using your link, so the HN guidelines need updating. The original "thereaderapp" link is much better, and I've frequently seen URL updates to pages with better content, even when the story doesn't originate there. De facto, HN should and does allow links with actually readable content.

LorenDB 2y ago
The guidelines say this: > Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. Just like links to sites like WSJ or NYT have their archive.today links in the comments rather than as primary sources, Twitter/X should be the primary link with Thread Reader in the comments. I don't like Twitter's login policy either, but we have rules around here and I'm going to encourage people to follow those rules by posting x.com links as primary links unless and until the rules are changed.
- randunel 2y ago
  The archive purpose isn't circumventing login, but archiving. They wouldn't want people to default to using them in lieu of the websites you mentioned, anyway. The reader app's purpose is organising different x posts into a more coherent article, actually readable. While the content is a concatenation of x posts, it's an article by itself. It sounds to me like you want to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing rules. There doesn't seem to be a reason other than that in your comment. X makes this website's experience worse, so let's follow the spirit of the rules when our interactions are considerably better, and not be rule extremists. HN has repeatedly broken its own rules for the sake of making things better for HN. The same thing happens here.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  Perhaps the rule is fine and your strict interpretation is what's off? E.g. I've always taken that "original source over reporting on the original source" rule as being "post what the original source said instead of what somebody said about the original source" not as "don't ever post verbatim archives of the original source, even if it makes them accessible to read". Or maybe it's not... but isn't it at least worth considering that kind of debate before admonishing others for not wanting to follow the rule you don't even agree with for the sake of following rules?

LorenDB 2y ago

The guidelines say this: > Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter. Just like links to sites like WSJ or NYT have their archive.today links in the comments rather than as primary sources, Twitter/X should be the primary link with Thread Reader in the comments. I don't like Twitter's login policy either, but we have rules around here and I'm going to encourage people to follow those rules by posting x.com links as primary links unless and until the rules are changed.

randunel 2y ago
The archive purpose isn't circumventing login, but archiving. They wouldn't want people to default to using them in lieu of the websites you mentioned, anyway. The reader app's purpose is organising different x posts into a more coherent article, actually readable. While the content is a concatenation of x posts, it's an article by itself. It sounds to me like you want to enforce rules for the sake of enforcing rules. There doesn't seem to be a reason other than that in your comment. X makes this website's experience worse, so let's follow the spirit of the rules when our interactions are considerably better, and not be rule extremists. HN has repeatedly broken its own rules for the sake of making things better for HN. The same thing happens here.
zamadatix 2y ago
Perhaps the rule is fine and your strict interpretation is what's off? E.g. I've always taken that "original source over reporting on the original source" rule as being "post what the original source said instead of what somebody said about the original source" not as "don't ever post verbatim archives of the original source, even if it makes them accessible to read". Or maybe it's not... but isn't it at least worth considering that kind of debate before admonishing others for not wanting to follow the rule you don't even agree with for the sake of following rules?