Just curious, why would you swap out a live link unless it is malicious or disingenuously reposting content from another source? Isn’t there value in a diversity of information sources and/or narrative dialog etc., even if sometimes some other source has a more detailed or better written article? Wouldn’t the better response be to post the other article and let that one win on merit?
Article quality makes a big difference to discussion quality.
Eventually we'll let a submission have more than one URL associated with it so there will be sets of links rather than just a single link - but even then there should be one singled out as somehow canonical.
Answering those questions first requires a standard of value to evaluate the options. HN is a rare site that sets an explicit standard for posts: they should “[gratify] one's intellectual curiosity”.
It’s not a great standard, partly because “gratify” implies a whole set of metaphysical value judgements. But it is better than none at all and can be reasonably inferred to place value on attributes like objectivity, expertise, comprehensiveness, and conciseness.
Should links be swapped even if there isn’t anything technically wrong with the original? Yes, if the replacement is better at gratifying intellectual curiosity.
Is there value if diversity of sources? Yes, but not sources that exhibit obvious bias, are poorly written, or woefully incomplete.
Wouldn’t it be better to post another article instead? Maybe, if both articles are good.
> Wouldn’t the better response be to post the other article and let that one win on merit?
Whether things bubble up to the front page has a little to do with merit and a lot to do with luck or timing. It is not uncommon to replace a poor source that has nevertheless made it to the front page with a higher quality article.
dcow|2 years ago
dang|2 years ago
Eventually we'll let a submission have more than one URL associated with it so there will be sets of links rather than just a single link - but even then there should be one singled out as somehow canonical.
abtinf|2 years ago
It’s not a great standard, partly because “gratify” implies a whole set of metaphysical value judgements. But it is better than none at all and can be reasonably inferred to place value on attributes like objectivity, expertise, comprehensiveness, and conciseness.
Should links be swapped even if there isn’t anything technically wrong with the original? Yes, if the replacement is better at gratifying intellectual curiosity.
Is there value if diversity of sources? Yes, but not sources that exhibit obvious bias, are poorly written, or woefully incomplete.
Wouldn’t it be better to post another article instead? Maybe, if both articles are good.
loeg|2 years ago
Are you familiar with Phoronix?
> Wouldn’t the better response be to post the other article and let that one win on merit?
Whether things bubble up to the front page has a little to do with merit and a lot to do with luck or timing. It is not uncommon to replace a poor source that has nevertheless made it to the front page with a higher quality article.
sp332|2 years ago