3 ms·

I'm surprised Huffington Post isn't blocked from HN. It's nothing but blogspam and cranks. How about we list the original content, either the study[1] or the op

I'm surprised Huffington Post isn't blocked from HN. It's nothing but blogspam and cranks. How about we list the original content, either the study[1] or the op-ed that most of the content was taken from[2]. 1: http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1535-7163.MCT-14-0402.abstract http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/12/1535-71... 2: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/18/how-pot-helped-shrink-one-of-the-most-aggressive-brain-cancers/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/18/h...

dreamweapon 12y ago
As with social overuse of MJ itself: I'd prefer that Huffington Post citations be moderated by the force of social opprobrium (preferably in the form of a consistent lack of upvoting), rather than by coercion (in this context, outright blocking).
jostmey 12y ago
I popped open the original study --- I cannot find where they mention how many mice were used in the study. If it was a small number, the results are meaningless. And as far as testing marijuana on cell lines, that can be problematic too. Just because something kills cancer cells doesn't mean it is a useful therapy. Alcohol would kill cancer cells but that doesn't mean it is the cure to cancer. You also have to show that it leaves healthy cells alone.
dang 12y ago
> I'm surprised Huffington Post isn't blocked from HN. It used to be, but somebody pleaded the case that they occasionally have solid articles, so we moved it from banned outright to lightweight, which means the articles get penalized by default but various conditions can override the penalty. A lot of big media sites are in this category. It's not a perfect solution, but it works better than the alternative. In the case of specialized technical papers that aren't in the local sweet spots such as computing, HN tends to prefer the best popular article on the subject, with the paper linked to in comments. It's not a fixed rule but it works well. For that reason, we wouldn't replace the Huffpo url with [1]. However, [2] is clearly a more original source, so we'll swap Huffpo out. Thanks! (Submitted url was http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/marijuana-brain-cancer_n_6181060.html. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/marijuana-brain-can...)
- driverdan 12y ago
  Thanks for the explanation. I've highly critical of HP but you're right, occasionally they have original content that deserves a link.

dreamweapon 12y ago

As with social overuse of MJ itself: I'd prefer that Huffington Post citations be moderated by the force of social opprobrium (preferably in the form of a consistent lack of upvoting), rather than by coercion (in this context, outright blocking).

jostmey 12y ago

I popped open the original study --- I cannot find where they mention how many mice were used in the study. If it was a small number, the results are meaningless. And as far as testing marijuana on cell lines, that can be problematic too. Just because something kills cancer cells doesn't mean it is a useful therapy. Alcohol would kill cancer cells but that doesn't mean it is the cure to cancer. You also have to show that it leaves healthy cells alone.

dang 12y ago

> I'm surprised Huffington Post isn't blocked from HN. It used to be, but somebody pleaded the case that they occasionally have solid articles, so we moved it from banned outright to lightweight, which means the articles get penalized by default but various conditions can override the penalty. A lot of big media sites are in this category. It's not a perfect solution, but it works better than the alternative. In the case of specialized technical papers that aren't in the local sweet spots such as computing, HN tends to prefer the best popular article on the subject, with the paper linked to in comments. It's not a fixed rule but it works well. For that reason, we wouldn't replace the Huffpo url with [1]. However, [2] is clearly a more original source, so we'll swap Huffpo out. Thanks! (Submitted url was http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/marijuana-brain-cancer_n_6181060.html. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/marijuana-brain-can...)

driverdan 12y ago
Thanks for the explanation. I've highly critical of HP but you're right, occasionally they have original content that deserves a link.