4 ms·

My bad, I read it incorrectly Edit: I appreciate my comment being hidden to reduce distraction for others, and to (selfishly) to prevent downvoting (not that I

by scoot 2y ago

My bad, I read it incorrectly Edit: I appreciate my comment being hidden to reduce distraction for others, and to (selfishly) to prevent downvoting (not that I'm collecting MIPs or anything! <sweatsmile>)

dang 2y ago
Oh you're far from the only one who reads those links that way—people commonly (mis)interpret links to past threads as being an implicit reproach ("why did you post this? it was already posted years ago"), when the intended meaning is more "hey, if you like this, there's related interesting stuff over here". I struggled for years to find the right language for presenting those links because nearly every wording seemed to provoke this misunderstanding. I eventually settled on simply saying "Related". That seems to minimize (but alas not eliminate) it. I often say "Related. Others?" which seems to work pretty well (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20related%20others&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). It's still my intention to integrate this related-links business more into HN's UI, which could maybe help with this quite a bit.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  I'll often call out either dupes (reposts w/in a year, often w/in days, hours, or minutes...) vs. prior discussions, and especially perennial favourites. For the latter I'll specifically note that reposts are in fact permitted and encouraged after a suitable period, linking guidelines and one of your own comments to that effect. Where submissions have had recent discussion but not above HN's somewhat vague "significant discussion" threshold (I generally go by <20 comments), I'll also note that. Often it's because I'd recalled earlier submission and wasn't sure myself whether or not those were dupes. Since other HN readers are also involved in flagging dupes, or boosting repeat submissions for stories under the threshold, communicating this clearly is useful. A point I've also emphasized in the past: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40849853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40849853> My own first comment on that thread my be buried dues to downvotes, it's the reply to the linked comment and read (prior to clarifying edits linking & citing guidelines): If you're calling a submission a dupe, say so. In this case, there's an 11-hour old submission, but at only 6 comments, it's well below the threshold I (a non-privileged HN participant) usually call for dupes, that being ~20 comments. So no, this is not a dupe. Since it's difficult to assess an author's intent on a vague or link-only comment, being explicit as to what the situation is is something I'd strongly encourage.

by scoot 2y ago

dang 2y ago

Oh you're far from the only one who reads those links that way—people commonly (mis)interpret links to past threads as being an implicit reproach ("why did you post this? it was already posted years ago"), when the intended meaning is more "hey, if you like this, there's related interesting stuff over here". I struggled for years to find the right language for presenting those links because nearly every wording seemed to provoke this misunderstanding. I eventually settled on simply saying "Related". That seems to minimize (but alas not eliminate) it. I often say "Related. Others?" which seems to work pretty well (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20related%20others&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). It's still my intention to integrate this related-links business more into HN's UI, which could maybe help with this quite a bit.

dredmorbius 2y ago
I'll often call out either dupes (reposts w/in a year, often w/in days, hours, or minutes...) vs. prior discussions, and especially perennial favourites. For the latter I'll specifically note that reposts are in fact permitted and encouraged after a suitable period, linking guidelines and one of your own comments to that effect. Where submissions have had recent discussion but not above HN's somewhat vague "significant discussion" threshold (I generally go by <20 comments), I'll also note that. Often it's because I'd recalled earlier submission and wasn't sure myself whether or not those were dupes. Since other HN readers are also involved in flagging dupes, or boosting repeat submissions for stories under the threshold, communicating this clearly is useful. A point I've also emphasized in the past: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40849853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40849853> My own first comment on that thread my be buried dues to downvotes, it's the reply to the linked comment and read (prior to clarifying edits linking & citing guidelines): If you're calling a submission a dupe, say so. In this case, there's an 11-hour old submission, but at only 6 comments, it's well below the threshold I (a non-privileged HN participant) usually call for dupes, that being ~20 comments. So no, this is not a dupe. Since it's difficult to assess an author's intent on a vague or link-only comment, being explicit as to what the situation is is something I'd strongly encourage.