Not really. A meta that says, "Hey, let's stop" is not the same as simply submitting more non-iPad stories. The meta-comment forces a re-appraisal of the decision making model for up-voting.
At times like this I wish the mods could merge multiple links into one large discussion. It seems like some of each discussion addresses the specific link being posted and a lot of the rest is general stuff that applies to any of the links being posted.
Agreed. Also, as much as a lot of rational discusion about what the target audience is and if it will success, all I can feel is sadness. I really have no arguments, but I only feel like in the presence of a pretty but completely stupid woman. It¡d be at least more tolerable if there was a single story to avoid.
I think it’s ok. I disagree with the sentiment but I think it’s the only polite way of voicing opposition. Much better than crowding the iPad submissions’ comments with noise. I think it’s useful to keep meta discussions separate from the normal discussions.
You can see that at least 64 people here agree with that opinion, so I would guess there are at least some people out there who are less likely to upvote iPad submissions after this.
I thought this may have been a statement of fact rather than an imperative. In the "new" queue I see 5 [of 30] iPad stories. That seems... not too bad.
Of the five: two are duplicates; those two are about updated code that's useful for iPad developers today. Two we could probably do without. One is this post.
You mean you want us to stop talking about the iPad being for mom but not, being a flop and a success, ironically open and closed, how it will crush Microsoft, Amazon, and Google in one go, and how it's hackable and closed?
Will there be a call for some erlangbposts??? I rly want to know moar about erlang!!! I been waiting for the call so that finally hn will have decent stories vs all iMaxiPad crap.
[+] [-] calvin|16 years ago|reply
I'm all for hearing other news. Please submit some. If it's awesome, we'll hear it through the noise.
[+] [-] boredguy8|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orblivion|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raganwald|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] narag|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdurkin|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ugh|16 years ago|reply
You can see that at least 64 people here agree with that opinion, so I would guess there are at least some people out there who are less likely to upvote iPad submissions after this.
[+] [-] Tichy|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BSeward|16 years ago|reply
Of the five: two are duplicates; those two are about updated code that's useful for iPad developers today. Two we could probably do without. One is this post.
[+] [-] SamAtt|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tdog123|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fretlessjazz|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pierrefar|16 years ago|reply
OK fine.
[+] [-] drcode|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonk|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danskil|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awt|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josh33|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keefe|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giles_goat_boy|16 years ago|reply
I've got that in effect for now and will remove it after the madness ebbs.
So if you want to read a version of HN with iPad references spam-filtered, here it is: http://hacker-newspaper.gilesb.com/
Merry Xmas
[+] [-] giles_goat_boy|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GrandMasterBirt|16 years ago|reply