zlacker

Is this comment part of the grift?

>>gardnr+(OP)
I don't think it's a grift in the negative sense but this is absolutely a marketing comment. They're doing exactly what they say to do in the comment. They're on HN where at least some of their target market is. They have a product that is relevant (right down to the headline/CTA). They didn't just post the link but put it at the end of an informational comment.

10/10 meta-promotion IMO

>>gardnr+(OP)
Maybe, maybe amanchanda is too.

>>pc86+97
They also likely were involved in the the original question getting posted so they could provide that answer which is what makes it an entirely fabricated grift

>>conduc+Nv
I was not involved in the original comment and not planning to publicly talk about my service until it's live, but the opportunity was too perfect to miss.

>>conduc+Nv
You need evidence to reasonably say they were "likely involved" and I don't think "it's conceivable that it happened that way" really counts as evidence.

>>pc86+zT
Debatable I suppose but I don't feel I do. That's what likely means - I feel I have enough suspicion, the coincidence is too strong, the stars too much in alignment...

Hard to recreate but at the time I commented it was also the top comment with only a few others and it was on the front page. I've been a HN'er for a while and this is a rare situation to say the least if it's not a setup. I'm not willing to die on the hill and would gladly admit I'm wrong, I just see it as very suspicious forum spam as the most likely scenario