I don't see this in the guidelines. Was it recently removed?
EDIT: Nevermind, I found it in this paragraph:
Don't abuse the text field in the submission form to add commentary to links. The text field is for starting discussions. If you're submitting a link, put it in the url field. If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about it and submit that instead.
That's exactly what I did, and they changed the link and modified the discussion!
Notice, people below were talking about RapGenius specifically, their VC, and how much a license costs - yet that stopped once the editors modified the URL & headline.
It's not "blogspam" - it gave a nod to the place I saw it originally, while providing a unique perspective on the subject because of my experience.
1 - The Pitchfork article didn't mention any numbers relating to what the license cost.
2 - I gave context into who David Lowery is
3 - The headline included RapGenius, which most people find news on interesting
That information was provided by me, after discussions with song publishers & research. Changing the title & URL is extremely disrespectful.
I was excited to read your article because based on this comment I thought it would have in-depth analysis of the issue, but I found it to be a very shallow in terms of additional content. It has one paragraph with the licensing costs, which is useful information, and then the two sentence blurb on David Lowery, which didn't seem to be meaningfully connected to the issue at all (it actually is somewhat negative in my view, because it seems to imply a slight hint of perhaps ad hominem, but that was just my initial impression, and doesn't seem totally justified upon rereading). If you had multiple discussions with song publishers and research on this topic, it would definitely be valuable to share them.
With respect to disrespect, Hacker News exists for the benefit of its readers, and not necessarily for the benefit of the Internet's citizen-journalist army. Hacker News admins prefer "canonical" sources in most situations. That said, I wouldn't consider your post "blogspam."
Comments
Why was the original link and title I submitted edited?
Please change it back:
http://subimage.com/blog/2013/11/12/startup-rapgenius-among-...
Because they classify it as blog spam, despite explicitly requesting it if you have your own comment to make.
I don't see this in the guidelines. Was it recently removed?
EDIT: Nevermind, I found it in this paragraph:
Don't abuse the text field in the submission form to add commentary to links. The text field is for starting discussions. If you're submitting a link, put it in the url field. If you want to add initial commentary on the link, write a blog post about it and submit that instead.
That's exactly what I did, and they changed the link and modified the discussion!
Notice, people below were talking about RapGenius specifically, their VC, and how much a license costs - yet that stopped once the editors modified the URL & headline.
Because it is "blogspam" and against the policies of this site.
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter.
It is already at least the second submission of this story in the last 24 hours. The previous one is here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6722938
It's not "blogspam" - it gave a nod to the place I saw it originally, while providing a unique perspective on the subject because of my experience.
1 - The Pitchfork article didn't mention any numbers relating to what the license cost. 2 - I gave context into who David Lowery is 3 - The headline included RapGenius, which most people find news on interesting
That information was provided by me, after discussions with song publishers & research. Changing the title & URL is extremely disrespectful.
I was excited to read your article because based on this comment I thought it would have in-depth analysis of the issue, but I found it to be a very shallow in terms of additional content. It has one paragraph with the licensing costs, which is useful information, and then the two sentence blurb on David Lowery, which didn't seem to be meaningfully connected to the issue at all (it actually is somewhat negative in my view, because it seems to imply a slight hint of perhaps ad hominem, but that was just my initial impression, and doesn't seem totally justified upon rereading). If you had multiple discussions with song publishers and research on this topic, it would definitely be valuable to share them.
With respect to disrespect, Hacker News exists for the benefit of its readers, and not necessarily for the benefit of the Internet's citizen-journalist army. Hacker News admins prefer "canonical" sources in most situations. That said, I wouldn't consider your post "blogspam."
All of that is fine and probably true but doesn't respond to the rule from the FAQ:
Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter.
I'd suggest posting your additions to the comments here to stir the discussion.
I did appreciate finding out who David Lowery is in the context of research.
[deleted]
Who can I contact about this?
sadly, no one.