zlacker

>>saeedj+(OP)
This is an interesting and in-depth article that was inappropriately flagged. I've turned off the flags.

I understand the impulse to flag follow-up stories [1], especially on the hottest controversies of the moment, which always produce a flood of articles, most of which aren't very good. Curiosity and repetition don't go together [2]. But it's important to recognize the articles that are higher than median quality and not simply flag an entire category mechanically. Curiosity isn't mechanical either.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

[3] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

>>dang+pW
> This is an interesting and in-depth article that was inappropriately flagged. I've switched off the flags.

Consider that people are not flagging it because "it's a follow up article", but because a) it's Bloomberg, ergo hard to believe b) it's the seven billionth "minorities in tech" story in the past month c) it's not going to create an interesting comment section d) they don't find it as interesting as you do.

It's your site of course, but if "moderators build the front page" is the new modus operandi, I'll be disappointed.

>>luckyl+yY
> because a) it's Bloomberg, ergo hard to believe

I don't buy into this theory that all Bloomberg content must be difficult to believe by default. There have been bad articles but I don't see a reason to automatically discount all articles.