5 ms·

I'm not sure I agree this is blogspam. I found it more informative that the original page. Mostly because it directly mentions that it's built on top of the Rep

by lawl 13y ago

I'm not sure I agree this is blogspam. I found it more informative that the original page. Mostly because it directly mentions that it's built on top of the RepRap. Also I think Cory Doctrow is a fairly respected writer (I read most of his books), and boingboing is a fairly respected blog. So I've submitted that instead of the original page. I can live with the change though, I just think it's unfair to call this blogspam. Edit: The number of upvotes/time might suggest the boingboing artice was better at explaining what this is about. It might be the reason why the original submit didn't gain any traction, and this one stoppped after the change. Just think it's an idea worth considering.

dang 13y ago
"Blogspam" here isn't a description of the site or the author, but rather the article, and it has a fairly technical meaning: a knock-off or excerpt or pointer to some other more original source. HN's policy has long been to prefer original sources. It's true that there are judgment calls involved, since a shorter piece sometimes adds clarity, as you say. Still, if the call isn't obvious, the site policy is to prefer the more original source. The word "blogspam" is probably a little too pejorative, though, and I'd be happy to use a better one if anybody suggests it. (Edit: actually, maybe just "links to" is good enough. I'll change the above.)