
Barcode recovery using a priori constraints - gvb
http://www.windytan.com/2016/02/barcode-recovery-using-priori.html?m=1
======
jcr
previous discussion

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11037524](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11037524)

~~~
detaro
There is no discussion there? limited reposts are explicitly allowed if a link
hasn't been discussed before. Please do not flag as dupe in these cases.

~~~
jcr
Hi detaro. I'm sorry if it frustrates you, but I've been asked to mark dupes
by the HN site admins. If there is already an up-voted story, particularly if
the previous story is sitting on the front page of HN (i.e. /news), then
additional submissions of the same story are dupes, even if it's the same
story from a different source or via a slightly different url.

If you could please 'unvouch' the two dupes, it would be appreciated. It will
save others the unnecessary work of re-hiding them. thanks.

~~~
detaro
> _If there is already an up-voted story,_

This seems to be a different interpretation of the rules than is practiced
otherwise, which interprets attention as "has been discussed". If there is a
new official interpretation IÄd appreciate a link to it.

In this case, the timestamps confused me: I saw the submission yesterday night
(17 hours ago), clicked here on "past", only saw this old submission, but
didn't see that it was apparently bumped by HN, because if I click on the link
it shows "4 hours ago". Given that it is very close I will unvouch these two
submissions, but I won't flag potential further submissions of the link (and
maybe even resubmit it myself, with enough distance)

~~~
dang
This was confusing because it's a borderline case, so you were both right. 28
points is significant attention, but 0 comments is no discussion. That's
unusual, and right on the boundary. A case like that probably needs to be
called by the ref.

In this case, it's probably a good article because the site is known to be
excellent, so we could probably have let it go through.

