This originally pointed to [1], which links to [2]. However, it doesn't seem that the project itself got any attention on HN, so we changed the url to that.
Submitters: please double-check what you post for links to more original sources. HN strongly prefers original sources.
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.
"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.)
I know this team -- have a class with them -- and they are doing some really cool stuff. As an electrical engineer myself, I'm getting really excited about where this idea of functional 3D printing could go. Like I said, I am biased because I know and like them, but if I had the money and skills to use a 3D printing system with a rabbit, I would buy one.
4 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 23.4 ms ] threadSubmitters: please double-check what you post for links to more original sources. HN strongly prefers original sources.
1. http://boingboing.net/2014/04/26/3d-printer-that-lays-down-c...
2.http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9247934/This_3D_print...
Edit: s/was blogspam of/links to/
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.
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.)