edit I'm not complaining, but it is a little bit frustrating to have it flagged then see a 3rd-level derived article show up. How can I prevent it in the future?
I'm the submitter (not the author) on this story. I searched for "futurama" before submitting, and didn't find anything related to this cancellation (or "not renovation", as some threads here would prefer).
I haven't flagged your submission (I've never flagged anything, around here). FWIW, though, I still find the article I linked to much more interesting that the EW one, because it focuses on the science and geeky aspects of futurama. I don't see it as "a 3rd-level derived article", but as "a scientist's take on the show and its cancellation".
Under that light, then, I'm not sure it should be prevented.
Edit: By "not sure it should be prevented", I don't mean that I think your submission should have been flagged. I mean that I think the same fact can allow for multiple submissions, and a derived article may be more interesting than the original source.
Absolutely no disagreement from me on anything you wrote here and sorry if I came across as diminishing the article you submitted. I was not, I was merely evoking a common thread in many thousands of HN articles where a great story is posted that is based off of a primary source, but somebody always asks for the link to the primary source. I think derived articles are not always "blog spam", and can usually offer interesting and unique commentary and insights above and beyond what's more or less a press release. Your submission definitely rises to that level. But it's irritating that the actual source of the news got killed (regardless of who submitted it).
In this case the opposite happened, but the primary source was killed. I know this is all a bit meta for HN, but even more meta, I'm finding it more and more frustrating to submit things as so many sites are now set to auto-kill.
Sorry if such and such news site is considered too biased, but it may be the only or primary source for a story. The autokill is also surprisingly biased in and of itself. For example, an article posted from Android Police will get killed, while an article MacRumors won't.
Comments
Same story, submitted hours before (by me), is the actual primary source (follow the slate links to vulture then to my story), flagged
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5592733
http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/04/22/futurama-not-renewed-comed...
edit I'm not complaining, but it is a little bit frustrating to have it flagged then see a 3rd-level derived article show up. How can I prevent it in the future?
I'm the submitter (not the author) on this story. I searched for "futurama" before submitting, and didn't find anything related to this cancellation (or "not renovation", as some threads here would prefer).
I haven't flagged your submission (I've never flagged anything, around here). FWIW, though, I still find the article I linked to much more interesting that the EW one, because it focuses on the science and geeky aspects of futurama. I don't see it as "a 3rd-level derived article", but as "a scientist's take on the show and its cancellation".
Under that light, then, I'm not sure it should be prevented.
Edit: By "not sure it should be prevented", I don't mean that I think your submission should have been flagged. I mean that I think the same fact can allow for multiple submissions, and a derived article may be more interesting than the original source.
Absolutely no disagreement from me on anything you wrote here and sorry if I came across as diminishing the article you submitted. I was not, I was merely evoking a common thread in many thousands of HN articles where a great story is posted that is based off of a primary source, but somebody always asks for the link to the primary source. I think derived articles are not always "blog spam", and can usually offer interesting and unique commentary and insights above and beyond what's more or less a press release. Your submission definitely rises to that level. But it's irritating that the actual source of the news got killed (regardless of who submitted it).
In this case the opposite happened, but the primary source was killed. I know this is all a bit meta for HN, but even more meta, I'm finding it more and more frustrating to submit things as so many sites are now set to auto-kill.
Sorry if such and such news site is considered too biased, but it may be the only or primary source for a story. The autokill is also surprisingly biased in and of itself. For example, an article posted from Android Police will get killed, while an article MacRumors won't.
Fair enough, I agree that this (subconscious?) auto-kill is silly.
I'm going to guess that most people here will flag an Entertainment Weekly article just out of reflex. (I didn't, just saying).
Probably, just hoping the story was HN friendly enough (it apparently was) to overcome the source (I guess it wasn't)