I didn't flag it myself but I think it is good for the site that people did. It is amusing but not really interesting. Maybe if someone interviewed the journalist about what happened (or the journalist wrote a blog post) it might be interesting (or it could be an amusing side note in an interesting article about something else). But people make mistakes all the time so there is an infinite amount of such content that could be posted. This is similar to how comments that are amusing but don't really contribute anything interesting to the discussion are discouraged (but sometimes get upvoted).

I use hckrnews.com and this is only one of many things that I enjoy reading and wouldn't have seen otherwise but really doesn't fit well with HN. Many people also flag articles that generate poor discussion for any reason in addition to when the article itself does not meet site guidelines.

> It is amusing but not really interesting.

Then I think just ignoring the submission will suffice; check out the "new" link and you'll see that happen constantly. At any rate, the submission ended up with 23 points despite the flagging, so some people found it interesting before it was killed.

The "flagged" term just implies I did something wrong here. Perhaps I needed to add a comment clarifying that the correction part appears at the end of the article; I figured later that maybe people were clicking through to the article, seeing a seemingly unrelated article with nothing to do with the snake people extension, and flagging it for that reason. If that's the case, fair enough, I suppose.