3 ms·

This is a prime example of why I prefer HN’s moderation. On SO, even though you’re objectively wrong — this is a link to a completely different site and discuss

This is a prime example of why I prefer HN’s moderation. On SO, even though you’re objectively wrong — this is a link to a completely different site and discussing it from a different angle — your active participation on the site would probably have given you the ability to close this conversation and ruin the discussion for those interested. I’m glad that HN doesn’t allow that, so we can roll our eyes at the obviously incorrect tag and get back to participating without having the rug yanked out from under us.

deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 10mo ago
There is nothing in the submitted article that isn't part of or significantly different than the large discussion already ongoing/passed. The discussion about toxic community etc. The short blog post is basically just another comment on that greater discussion. The discussion which is already over there. No need to split it up or repeat it again days later. It's a duplicate discussion.
- kstrauser 10mo ago
  I disagree, and that’s what I value here: you can add your tags, and we can opt to follow or ignore them as we see fit. That’s far better than the SO model of a site participant having the ability to shut down the conversation for everyone. But also, a note: conversations are never finished. People talked about this broad topic yesterday, but I didn’t see it yesterday to be able to weigh in. I’m here today, saw this topic, and started talking about it with the other people who stumbled across it just now. I would be highly annoyed with a friend if I brought up an interesting subject and they replied that they’d already discussed it with someone else over dinner last night so there’s no need to talk about it again. I wasn’t there last night. Even if there was a recording of it, that would be a stale artifact I could interact with, other than to contact last night’s debaters and try to continue on with a subject they’d already finished with.
  - ChrisArchitect 10mo ago
    You're welcome to continue the 'unfinished' conversation over there. The thread isn't closed. This article isn't bringing anything new. And yet is forcing the thousands and thousands of HNers who saw the previous main discussion and news days ago to see it again? Sorry you weren't there, sorry you missed it. It's the bringing it up and repeating much of the discussion so soon that's the hinderance. Stuff moves pretty fast around here.
    - kstrauser 10mo ago
      I think I'd prefer to have it here with people who are still engaged and actively discussing it, rather than whispering to ghosts in another thread that people have moved past. But no one's forcing anyone to see this version of it. It's just a link they can skip past, although if enough people upvote this post to keep it on the front page, then apparently a significant chunk of the readership hasn't gotten tired of seeing it yet.
      - ChrisArchitect 10mo ago
        Sorry some of you missed it. And in particular with this one, a lot more people saw the original one and discussed it. It's a huge thread. And now just repeating alot of the talking points in that thread here because again, the submitted post isn't anything new, it's hardly a substantial blog post. Part of the dupe notice is to highlight that maybe your talking point was already covered recently in another thread. You are forcing us to see it again because you're pushing it onto the front page again and into a hundred feeds as if it's fresh. But it's not. It's just a split up/repeated thread about something from 4 days ago. Anyways, OP maybe didn't realize it but you've been around long enough to know things move fast around here.
zahlman 10mo ago
On Stack Overflow, splitting the posts between two targets would be "ruining it", because there is an explicit goal of keeping that information together. But more importantly, the entire point there is not to have free-running, threaded discussion. Obviously the practices should be different here.
- kstrauser 10mo ago
  Agreed.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

ChrisArchitect 10mo ago

There is nothing in the submitted article that isn't part of or significantly different than the large discussion already ongoing/passed. The discussion about toxic community etc. The short blog post is basically just another comment on that greater discussion. The discussion which is already over there. No need to split it up or repeat it again days later. It's a duplicate discussion.

kstrauser 10mo ago
I disagree, and that’s what I value here: you can add your tags, and we can opt to follow or ignore them as we see fit. That’s far better than the SO model of a site participant having the ability to shut down the conversation for everyone. But also, a note: conversations are never finished. People talked about this broad topic yesterday, but I didn’t see it yesterday to be able to weigh in. I’m here today, saw this topic, and started talking about it with the other people who stumbled across it just now. I would be highly annoyed with a friend if I brought up an interesting subject and they replied that they’d already discussed it with someone else over dinner last night so there’s no need to talk about it again. I wasn’t there last night. Even if there was a recording of it, that would be a stale artifact I could interact with, other than to contact last night’s debaters and try to continue on with a subject they’d already finished with.
- ChrisArchitect 10mo ago
  You're welcome to continue the 'unfinished' conversation over there. The thread isn't closed. This article isn't bringing anything new. And yet is forcing the thousands and thousands of HNers who saw the previous main discussion and news days ago to see it again? Sorry you weren't there, sorry you missed it. It's the bringing it up and repeating much of the discussion so soon that's the hinderance. Stuff moves pretty fast around here.
  - kstrauser 10mo ago
    I think I'd prefer to have it here with people who are still engaged and actively discussing it, rather than whispering to ghosts in another thread that people have moved past. But no one's forcing anyone to see this version of it. It's just a link they can skip past, although if enough people upvote this post to keep it on the front page, then apparently a significant chunk of the readership hasn't gotten tired of seeing it yet.
    - ChrisArchitect 10mo ago
      Sorry some of you missed it. And in particular with this one, a lot more people saw the original one and discussed it. It's a huge thread. And now just repeating alot of the talking points in that thread here because again, the submitted post isn't anything new, it's hardly a substantial blog post. Part of the dupe notice is to highlight that maybe your talking point was already covered recently in another thread. You are forcing us to see it again because you're pushing it onto the front page again and into a hundred feeds as if it's fresh. But it's not. It's just a split up/repeated thread about something from 4 days ago. Anyways, OP maybe didn't realize it but you've been around long enough to know things move fast around here.

zahlman 10mo ago

On Stack Overflow, splitting the posts between two targets would be "ruining it", because there is an explicit goal of keeping that information together. But more importantly, the entire point there is not to have free-running, threaded discussion. Obviously the practices should be different here.

kstrauser 10mo ago
Agreed.