3 ms·

This is a very brief blog blurb linking the original Tech Radar article that got fairly extensive discussion on HN a week and a half ago [0]. Potentially quite

by xoa 2mo ago

This is a very brief blog blurb linking the original Tech Radar article that got fairly extensive discussion on HN a week and a half ago [0]. Potentially quite an important one though so a second go around may still be very justified for those who missed it last time. Amidst a lot of negative moves around the net recently it's nice to see some sanity at least once in awhile. ---- 0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48997221 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48997221

traceroute66 2mo ago
Yeah, please could everyone not pile in and start re-hashing the extensive comments that have already been made only a week and a half ago. Whatever you're thinking of posting has almost certainly already been said more than once on the original HN discussion.
- shevy-java 2mo ago
  With due the greatest respect: it is not up to you to decide on what others deem worthy of commenting or not.
- stronglikedan 2mo ago
  Gatekeeping through the voting system is preferable to gatekeeping by random comments, if you feel you must gatekeep.
- alias_neo 2mo ago
  Perhaps people missed that, and would like to start a new discussion? It didn't know there was a quota on discussions of any particular topic, perhaps we should give out tickets to the event in the future to ensure no-one misses their opportunity to join the discourse?
  - WalterGR 2mo ago
    > It didn't know there was a quota on discussions of any particular topic It’s in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#reposts https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#reposts “Are reposts ok? If a story has not had significant attention in the last year or so, a small number of reposts is ok. Otherwise we bury reposts as duplicates.” Alternately, here are comments by moderator dang that mention reposting: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=author%3Adang%20repost&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
    - ranger_danger 2mo ago
      Sometimes reposts get the attention of the second-chance pool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 I had one such post that deserved comments but didn't get any, then someone reposted it and dang put the original back into the pool.
    - alias_neo 2mo ago
      Reposts is one thing, but the person I replied to was gatekeeping the discussion. If the post is flagged, that does the job of solving that for us, but telling people not to start a discussion on a subject "because we've been there before" is S tier gatekeeping, and that's what I was opposing.
      - 1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago
        There are some HN commenters that try to do this on a regular basis, either trying to prevent discussion, redirect it or get it moved to another thread For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ChrisArchitect https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ChrisArchitect It's quite strange to submit something that obviously isn't going to get any discussion, this is a _news aggregator_ not a "discussion aggregator", only to see the same commenter repeatedly leave some asinine comment about "duplication" This submission is not a "[dupe]" as in "duplicate URL". As one can clearly see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=remysharp.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=remysharp.com It has not been submitted before So what's the big deal. If it isn't interesting then it will be ignored, right As it happens, submissions that cover a topic also covered by other submissions routinely get upvotes and even promoted to page one, as with this one It is not clear what these "gatekeepers" are hoping to accomplish, but something is getting to them and it probably isn't HN. For example, the previous discussion of this CJEU decision veered off on tangents having nothing to do with the decision. To suggest there is no comment one could make now that was not in the previous thread is laughable. That thread contained almost zero commentary about the decision itself. Perhaps the "gatekeepers" do not like the nature of the commentary they are seeing. Who knows HN voters, e.g., this submission already has 418 points, and other commenters who have been "touching grass" and are not bothered by the repetitive nature of HN, greatly outnumber these gatekeepers Neverthless, their quest to quash or redirect discussion for whatever reason, and it's reasonable to question whether it is truly "duplication", may succeed, at least temporarily, as "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" This submission will probably get ejected from page one soon But it stands to reason that HN is much more than the noisiest HN commenters In terms of numbers, maybe something like HN readers (no account) >> HN users (potential voters) >> HN commenters >> "gatekeepers"
- Forgeties79 2mo ago
  Let’s dig through your comment history and apply the same standard.
- dpoloncsak 2mo ago
  Yeah I'd hate for multiple comments re-hashing the exact same comments that people already made before, but sometimes there's value in it...I'm sure you'd agree? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49109440#49109857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49109440#49109857 Is it even preferable to necro an 8-day old topic? New developments are going to lead to new talking points, right?
- wlesieutre 2mo ago
  Is this StackOverflow now, where it's forbidden to discuss something if someone else had a similar discussion before?
  - NoSalt 2mo ago
    Part StackOverflow, part Reddit ... it's getting dicey around here.
  - zamadatix 2mo ago
    Ever I'd hope not, but it would make sense to check if a discussion was already started a week ago and add to it rather than start separate ones constantly for each new piece of news - but not as a strict requirement, just an ask. After enough time there tends to be additional development/information which makes using the old conversations useless.
    - esseph 2mo ago
      For most of the people on this board, they'd do better to spend that time touching grass as opposed to searching for something that people might have talked about anywhere from 1min - 365+ days ago.
- kthartic 2mo ago
  Very odd take. Let's not discourage open discussion. I've not seen whatever original HN thread you're referring to.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

by xoa 2mo ago

traceroute66 2mo ago

Yeah, please could everyone not pile in and start re-hashing the extensive comments that have already been made only a week and a half ago. Whatever you're thinking of posting has almost certainly already been said more than once on the original HN discussion.

shevy-java 2mo ago
With due the greatest respect: it is not up to you to decide on what others deem worthy of commenting or not.
stronglikedan 2mo ago
Gatekeeping through the voting system is preferable to gatekeeping by random comments, if you feel you must gatekeep.
alias_neo 2mo ago
Perhaps people missed that, and would like to start a new discussion? It didn't know there was a quota on discussions of any particular topic, perhaps we should give out tickets to the event in the future to ensure no-one misses their opportunity to join the discourse?
- WalterGR 2mo ago
  > It didn't know there was a quota on discussions of any particular topic It’s in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#reposts https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#reposts “Are reposts ok? If a story has not had significant attention in the last year or so, a small number of reposts is ok. Otherwise we bury reposts as duplicates.” Alternately, here are comments by moderator dang that mention reposting: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=author%3Adang%20repost&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  - ranger_danger 2mo ago
    Sometimes reposts get the attention of the second-chance pool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308 I had one such post that deserved comments but didn't get any, then someone reposted it and dang put the original back into the pool.
  - alias_neo 2mo ago
    Reposts is one thing, but the person I replied to was gatekeeping the discussion. If the post is flagged, that does the job of solving that for us, but telling people not to start a discussion on a subject "because we've been there before" is S tier gatekeeping, and that's what I was opposing.
    - 1vuio0pswjnm7 2mo ago
      There are some HN commenters that try to do this on a regular basis, either trying to prevent discussion, redirect it or get it moved to another thread For example, https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ChrisArchitect https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=ChrisArchitect It's quite strange to submit something that obviously isn't going to get any discussion, this is a _news aggregator_ not a "discussion aggregator", only to see the same commenter repeatedly leave some asinine comment about "duplication" This submission is not a "[dupe]" as in "duplicate URL". As one can clearly see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=remysharp.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=remysharp.com It has not been submitted before So what's the big deal. If it isn't interesting then it will be ignored, right As it happens, submissions that cover a topic also covered by other submissions routinely get upvotes and even promoted to page one, as with this one It is not clear what these "gatekeepers" are hoping to accomplish, but something is getting to them and it probably isn't HN. For example, the previous discussion of this CJEU decision veered off on tangents having nothing to do with the decision. To suggest there is no comment one could make now that was not in the previous thread is laughable. That thread contained almost zero commentary about the decision itself. Perhaps the "gatekeepers" do not like the nature of the commentary they are seeing. Who knows HN voters, e.g., this submission already has 418 points, and other commenters who have been "touching grass" and are not bothered by the repetitive nature of HN, greatly outnumber these gatekeepers Neverthless, their quest to quash or redirect discussion for whatever reason, and it's reasonable to question whether it is truly "duplication", may succeed, at least temporarily, as "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" This submission will probably get ejected from page one soon But it stands to reason that HN is much more than the noisiest HN commenters In terms of numbers, maybe something like HN readers (no account) >> HN users (potential voters) >> HN commenters >> "gatekeepers"
Forgeties79 2mo ago
Let’s dig through your comment history and apply the same standard.
dpoloncsak 2mo ago
Yeah I'd hate for multiple comments re-hashing the exact same comments that people already made before, but sometimes there's value in it...I'm sure you'd agree? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49109440#49109857 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49109440#49109857 Is it even preferable to necro an 8-day old topic? New developments are going to lead to new talking points, right?
wlesieutre 2mo ago
Is this StackOverflow now, where it's forbidden to discuss something if someone else had a similar discussion before?
- NoSalt 2mo ago
  Part StackOverflow, part Reddit ... it's getting dicey around here.
- zamadatix 2mo ago
  Ever I'd hope not, but it would make sense to check if a discussion was already started a week ago and add to it rather than start separate ones constantly for each new piece of news - but not as a strict requirement, just an ask. After enough time there tends to be additional development/information which makes using the old conversations useless.
  - esseph 2mo ago
    For most of the people on this board, they'd do better to spend that time touching grass as opposed to searching for something that people might have talked about anywhere from 1min - 365+ days ago.
kthartic 2mo ago
Very odd take. Let's not discourage open discussion. I've not seen whatever original HN thread you're referring to.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]