The first instance the link died possibly because lots of people flagged it.
With that said I was a bit confused too. Your original link read like a blog - of which the first post was about that one form of traffic calming. I think it was an easy mistake to make thinking it was blog spam because that other link posted is apparently the original source of the photo's/story.
The fact you had additional content was less clear and probably was missed by some (especially after the blogspam comment was added). According to the guidelines: Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter.
If people thought it was not original source they might flag it.
The second one is a bit more complicated. It was a somewhat over the top title (and I know it comes straight from the source link). Personally I would have supported editing it - though I do agree the title chosen was somewhat dull and misleading too!
With all that said there has been a marked increase in active moderation I noticed since being back from holiday this week. Notably the Eddie Izzard topic was killed off despite being top of the front page for a while (probably rightly killed off but I havent seen that happen much before).
New mod? or stricter policies?
At the end of the day I dont think it will reflect on you much :) I've found people dont care too much about a feww seeming "indescretions" (valid or not)
I'm glad I got to it before it was killed. It was, frankly, one of the more interesting posts that I happened to see yesterday. It's remarkable that he could do that, and considering how difficult it is he accomplished quite a mind hack.
That is one amazing story, I'm seriously impressed. Izzard always was one of a kind, with this he literally transcends himself. Whoever bumped that off HN does not have my gratitude, if there is anything at all that separates successful entrepreneurs from the failed ones it is stamina and the will to continue in light of hardship.
Deleting that is pretty much proof positive that HN moderation really is not doing a very good job.
When people don't read my submission it's not my problem. When they flag it for the wrong reason it shouldn't be my problem either. It should be checked whether it's OK or not.
In case you change my submission to the worse due to false flagging don't make me responsible for that.
You know. Fair enough that is an idea for a feature (personally I think the community style moderation seems to work ok); but demanding it isnt likely to get you anywhere. Just a comment.
Comments
Ok here goes an answer on this.
The first instance the link died possibly because lots of people flagged it.
With that said I was a bit confused too. Your original link read like a blog - of which the first post was about that one form of traffic calming. I think it was an easy mistake to make thinking it was blog spam because that other link posted is apparently the original source of the photo's/story.
The fact you had additional content was less clear and probably was missed by some (especially after the blogspam comment was added). According to the guidelines: Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they found on another site, submit the latter.
If people thought it was not original source they might flag it.
The second one is a bit more complicated. It was a somewhat over the top title (and I know it comes straight from the source link). Personally I would have supported editing it - though I do agree the title chosen was somewhat dull and misleading too!
With all that said there has been a marked increase in active moderation I noticed since being back from holiday this week. Notably the Eddie Izzard topic was killed off despite being top of the front page for a while (probably rightly killed off but I havent seen that happen much before).
New mod? or stricter policies?
At the end of the day I dont think it will reflect on you much :) I've found people dont care too much about a feww seeming "indescretions" (valid or not)
Notably the Eddie Izzard topic was killed off...
I'm glad I got to it before it was killed. It was, frankly, one of the more interesting posts that I happened to see yesterday. It's remarkable that he could do that, and considering how difficult it is he accomplished quite a mind hack.
I'm always amused at how people try to squeeze "hack" into defining a submission. I guess I love jargon hacks.
I missed that, do you still have the link somewhere ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8256589.stm
and discussion http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=827803
Thank you!
That is one amazing story, I'm seriously impressed. Izzard always was one of a kind, with this he literally transcends himself. Whoever bumped that off HN does not have my gratitude, if there is anything at all that separates successful entrepreneurs from the failed ones it is stamina and the will to continue in light of hardship.
Deleting that is pretty much proof positive that HN moderation really is not doing a very good job.
wow!! what a story. I can see why it got flagged for not being tech startup oriented, whatever. But wow, I would have upvoted it anyway.
Heavy-handed moderation is worse than no moderation at all.
When people don't read my submission it's not my problem. When they flag it for the wrong reason it shouldn't be my problem either. It should be checked whether it's OK or not.
In case you change my submission to the worse due to false flagging don't make me responsible for that.
If the submission is not well-written enough for people to read properly, whose problem is that?
It should be checked whether it's OK or not.
You know. Fair enough that is an idea for a feature (personally I think the community style moderation seems to work ok); but demanding it isnt likely to get you anywhere. Just a comment.