4 ms·
Duplicate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46281961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46281961
by D-Machine 10mo ago
Duplicate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46281961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46281961
- croes 10mo ago6 points no comments vs 18 points and 2 comments. Faster isn’t the metric here
- D-Machine 10mo agoAm I missing something here? I am new to posting at HN, despite being a long-time reader. I get that HN has a policy to allow duplicates so that duplicates that were missed for arbitrary timing reasons can still gain traction at later times. I've seen plenty of "[Duplicate]" tagged posts, and have just seen this as a sort of useful thing for readers (duplicates may have interesting info, or seeing that the dupe did or did not gain traction also gives me info). But maybe I am missing something here, particularly etiquette-wise?
- kachapopopow 10mo agobetter title is most often the reason for it, looking at it the em-dash probably caused people to dismiss it as an AI bot.
- D-Machine 10mo agoIf that's the simplistic heuristic people here are using...
- kachapopopow 10mo agoif you turn on "show dead" you will see a lot of spam / AI comments
- D-Machine 10mo agoYeah I have that on so see those all the time, I was more wondering why I got a strange comment about tagging a duplicate, and was wondering if I was breaching some kind of etiquette.
- kachapopopow 10mo agopeople with 100k+ karma often breach the etiquitte they preach so I wouldn't worry too much about it, worse case you get downvoted to -5 and it'll become dead.
- D-Machine 10mo agoOk, figured basically that, but very much appreciate the confirmation. Thanks!
- layer8 10mo agoIt’s certainly okay to link to a previous discussion, but “duplicate” implies that you think the present submission shouldn’t exist, and the previous submission doesn’t actually provide any discussion. The fact that a previous submission didn’t gain traction isn’t usually interesting, because it can be pretty random whether something gains traction or not, depending on time of day and audience that happens to be online.
- D-Machine 10mo agoOkay, I don't in general see "duplicate" as implying this, but I take your point, and was wondering if that might be the etiquette here. I also think, on reflection, that you are right in this particular case (given there are no comments on the previous duplicate) so, thank you also for clarifying. I suppose in the future an e.g. "[Previous discussion]" tag would be more appropriate, providing comments were made, otherwise, just say nothing and leave it to HN.