SpaceX cleared for US military launches

Re:SpaceX cleared for US military launches by kaolinite on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @10:52AM (#9611759)

Wow, thanks Colin - really cool information. Where do you get the contents of 'records' from? Do you have a script that crawls occasionally?

If we merge bbc.com and bbc.co.uk, we end up with 125 / 10,000. I suppose that isn't that many compared to others, but it's still higher than I think it should be. ArsTechnica (which often runs the same articles, such as this SpaceX one) only has 68 / 10,000 and the articles are written with a lot more technical detail.

Nevertheless, I'm not really sure what can be done about it. We can't ban the BBC from HN, as with BuzzFeed, because that's over the top - there's some good content. A nice solution might be to remind people, on the submission page, that it's better to go to the source - or at least a good, technical write-up - rather than a news post that is written for the general public.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SpaceX cleared for US military launches by ColinWright on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @11:12AM (#9611916)

  > Where do you get the contents of 'records' from?

I download the "newest" and "news" pages every 15 minutes or so, then collate the data.

  > If we merge bbc.com and bbc.co.uk, we
  > end up with 125 / 10,000.  I suppose
  > that isn't that many compared to others,

It's less than some, but not as many as, say, nytimes.com or techcrunch.com. But it's a major news site, so I'm not surprised people read it and go "Oh, that's interesting, I'll click the HN bookmarklet and submit it."

  > ... still higher than I think it should be.

What do you think it "should be?"

  > A nice solution might be to remind people,
  > ... that it's better to go to the source ...

I personally find it useful to read a non-technical overview, and then if interested, go and find the technical version. Often the article with technical details borders on unreadable.

[ Parent | on HN ]