Even if we hadn't changed the URL we would have downweighted the thread from #1. We generally moderate HN to downweight sensational-indignant stories—otherwise the front page would consist of nothing but that. This is standard practice on HN.
That isn't necessary—I rolled back the clock on the other submission and added enough upvotes that it would be on the front page. (Not quite as high as it was before, but that's standard moderation for any sensational-indignant kind of story.)
Something I thought about when working on a news aggregator idea: for similar cases, where multiple sources report slightly different takes, have a kind of a submenu with the list of other sources. Like [similar] perhaps?
Yes, I definitely want to implement something like this at some point. There are higher priorities, and precious little time to write code, so I don't know when we'll get to it though.
17 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 40.3 ms ] threadhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/12/04/joan-do...
https://archive.is/oKsbi
In a case like this it's probably best to have the main link be the best third-party report and link to the advocacy site in the comments.
Even if we hadn't changed the URL we would have downweighted the thread from #1. We generally moderate HN to downweight sensational-indignant stories—otherwise the front page would consist of nothing but that. This is standard practice on HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38517550&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38517550&p=3 ... and so on
(There weren't a thousand though, rather around 500—unless there's some sort of catastrophic bug I'm unaware of.)