zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. dang+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-20 06:10:02
No. What made you think it was?
replies(1): >>0xDEAF+01
2. 0xDEAF+01[view] [source] 2023-11-20 06:15:10
>>dang+(OP)
It got a number of upvotes, but somehow ended up at the bottom of the comment thread.
replies(1): >>dang+IB3
◧◩
3. dang+IB3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-21 00:26:23
>>0xDEAF+01
I'm sorry! It was indeed downweighted, though not by a mod - there are other ways that that can happen.

I'm not sure why I thought otherwise—it's possible that I didn't look at the correct comment, or possibly I looked at it before it got downweighted, though neither of those seem likely. In any case, I definitely don't want to give you, or any user, inaccurate information and I'm sorry about that.

As for the comment itself, I don't think it was terribly good for HN—it was more on the snark/fulmination/flamewar side of the ledger, rather than the curious conversation we're looking for, as described at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If I had seen it I might have downweighted it too, though probably not as much.

[go to top]