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 t

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.