zlacker

>>tonmoy+(OP)
IMO the guidelines could use some updates. For example, there are some unwritten conventions that could be formalized:

1) Search for duplicates before you submit a link.

2) If the submission is not from the current year, append (YEAR) at the end of the title.

3) It should be clarified that the guidelines about comments apply to linked article authors too. "Be kind. Don't be snarky." "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work."

4) There's dang's own idiosyncratic, controversial, unwritten exception to "Please submit the original source", i.e., unless it's a corporate PR.

[EDIT:] Three different replies have said to append [pdf] and [video] to submissions, but that's already in the guidelines. "If you submit a video or pdf, please warn us by appending [video] or [pdf] to the title."

>>lapcat+sg
A lot of stuff also gets posted which is behind a paywall. I've learned to tune these out for the most part just from the domain name but I still don't see the point.

>>osigur+2J
Paywalled stories are OK if there are straightforward workarounds, which are almost always surfaced on the thread. Stories that people simply can't read without subscribing are off-topic here.

>>10178989

>>tptace+hZ
This has been somewhat increasingly problematic over the past month or so as well-known existing workarounds seem to be increasingly problematic or failing.

Around 15% or more of HN front-page submissions are to paywalled and/or general news sites.

(I've classified the latter in my analysis of historic HN front-page activity, I haven't gone through to specifically note paywalled sites.)

And tightening paywalls can have a large impact on submissions. After the New York Times strengthened its paywall in 2019, HN front-page submissions fell to about 25% of their previous level.

<>>36918251 >