Re:Let's All Shed Tears For The Crappy Startups That Can't R...
by rexreed on Monday December 03, 2012 @02:02PM
(#4867173)
While I don't want to second-guess your judgement, I've seen many other articles that are just as much rehashes and not shut down as dupes. Why does this article deserve the axe so quickly? Indeed, if it is saying something different from the other articles (as odious as it might be), wouldn't that indicate it is not a dupe?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Let's All Shed Tears For The Crappy Startups That Can't R...
by pg on Monday December 03, 2012 @02:07PM
(#4867203)
This article is dupe + linkbait. Most mere dupes don't get upvoted, so there's no need to kill them.
Re:Let's All Shed Tears For The Crappy Startups That Can't R...
by bonaldi on Monday December 03, 2012 @02:27PM
(#4867307)
Either trust what the upvotes tell you, even when you disagree, or manually curate the front page. We can eat your cake, or you can have it.
Re:Let's All Shed Tears For The Crappy Startups That Can't R...
by _dps on Monday December 03, 2012 @02:37PM
(#4867353)
> Either trust what the upvotes tell you, even when you disagree, or manually curate ...
Why the harsh dichotomy? Surely one can believe upvotes to be a good filtering method on average while still accepting that occasionally they do a poor job and require some intervention?
(Note: not taking a position on the article itself, but rather the practice of manual intervention)
Re:Let's All Shed Tears For The Crappy Startups That Can't R...
by bonaldi on Monday December 03, 2012 @02:58PM
(#4867459)
One can believe that, but it's different saying that "sometimes spam and dupes slip through" and saying "I disagree with everyone else, they're wrong, I'm right", which is what he's doing in this case.
It's as if he visited a user page for someone he didn't like, saw 5000 karma and said "yeah, but his posts are mostly fluff. I'm making that 3500".