zlacker

Hi swombat, Regarding gawker, as I remember, there was a discussion here whether to ban it, and most people were for the ban. The reason was the low quality of journalism and defamation tendencies in some of its articles. So gawker is indeed banned.

>>greyma+(OP)
why not ban techcrunch on the same grounds then ?

>>nrayna+m
Because TechCrunch is in bed with YCombinator, of course ;) http://uncov.com/ycombinator-techcrunch-butthappy

(Yes, this is a joke)

>>nrayna+m
Techcrunch is indeed pretty nasty sometimes, and I have criticised them here before, but it would be utterly ridiculous if hacker news, a news site for startups, banned one of the preeminent startup blogs.

Techcrunch is influential and as such it is relevant for many people here. You can ban a site that is nasty and irrelevant, but you cannot ban a very relevant site just because some articles are odious.

Banning should not be about morals, but rather about usefulness.

>>greyma+(OP)
Yeah. As I said, I'm not objecting to the idea of sites being banned. That seems fairly reasonable to me. However, it'd be nice to know which sites were banned, and for what.

Gawker, I can totally understand. Infochachkie, on the other hand, seems like a pretty decent site so I'm not quite sure why they were banned. Are there others which were banned that we don't know about? Were they banned for a good reason? Can your own site/blog/etc get banned in a similar way? What are the criteria? What should you avoid doing? etc.

>>fauige+R
Noisy != useful

Moralistic != useful

But your mileage may vary.