3 ms·

Directly to the source: http://csis.org/publication/reference-note-russian-communications-surveillance http://csis.org/publication/reference-note-russian-commun

by Sprint 12y ago

Directly to the source: http://csis.org/publication/reference-note-russian-communications-surveillance http://csis.org/publication/reference-note-russian-communica...

diggan 12y ago
If a random blog did the same a Schneier here (just providing link to source and a except from the article), would this submission not be marked as blogspam?
- piokuc 12y ago
  Wait a minute - it wasn't Schneier who submitted the link, was it?
  - diggan 12y ago
    I'm not saying that either. Anyway, seems like it was seen as blogspam and the submission have been changed now.
dang 12y ago
Thanks—fixed. The original url [1] was blogspam—that is, it was a knock-off (or excerpt) of some other, more original source. In such cases HN strongly prefers the original source. Submitters: blogspam is usually easy to recognize. Please check for that and post the original instead. 1. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/info_on_russian.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/info_on_russi...
- willvarfar 12y ago
  Calling Schneier "blogspam" means you don't read his blog. You really really should.
  - dang 12y ago
    Funny, I had a line that said "Schneier's original, substantive pieces are fine, of course" which I deleted as unnecessary. Perhaps I'll err the other way and write too much. "Blogspam" is an attribute of an article, not an author [1]. I defined it above, and even included "or excerpt" to cover the current case. I enjoy reading Schneier. Many of his articles are on-topic for HN. But the more lightweight ones often aren't (because there are more solid sources and we only want so many about a given topic). As for as a mere excerpt like this, there shouldn't even be a question. None of this means these pieces aren't appropriate on Schneier's site. It's natural for his blog to be a clearinghouse for stuff he didn't write, but wants to share. Not all of it, though, is perfect for HN, where (a) the front page is space-constrained; (b) we want the most substantive pieces on a given story; (c) we prefer original sources. 1. Had I said "spamblog", you'd have had a point. :)

by Sprint 12y ago

Directly to the source: http://csis.org/publication/reference-note-russian-communications-surveillance http://csis.org/publication/reference-note-russian-communica...

diggan 12y ago

If a random blog did the same a Schneier here (just providing link to source and a except from the article), would this submission not be marked as blogspam?

piokuc 12y ago
Wait a minute - it wasn't Schneier who submitted the link, was it?
- diggan 12y ago
  I'm not saying that either. Anyway, seems like it was seen as blogspam and the submission have been changed now.

dang 12y ago

Thanks—fixed. The original url [1] was blogspam—that is, it was a knock-off (or excerpt) of some other, more original source. In such cases HN strongly prefers the original source. Submitters: blogspam is usually easy to recognize. Please check for that and post the original instead. 1. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/info_on_russian.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/04/info_on_russi...

willvarfar 12y ago
Calling Schneier "blogspam" means you don't read his blog. You really really should.
- dang 12y ago
  Funny, I had a line that said "Schneier's original, substantive pieces are fine, of course" which I deleted as unnecessary. Perhaps I'll err the other way and write too much. "Blogspam" is an attribute of an article, not an author [1]. I defined it above, and even included "or excerpt" to cover the current case. I enjoy reading Schneier. Many of his articles are on-topic for HN. But the more lightweight ones often aren't (because there are more solid sources and we only want so many about a given topic). As for as a mere excerpt like this, there shouldn't even be a question. None of this means these pieces aren't appropriate on Schneier's site. It's natural for his blog to be a clearinghouse for stuff he didn't write, but wants to share. Not all of it, though, is perfect for HN, where (a) the front page is space-constrained; (b) we want the most substantive pieces on a given story; (c) we prefer original sources. 1. Had I said "spamblog", you'd have had a point. :)