Understood. The article likely is substantially the same as the Techspot piece that was submitted earlier. (They're both cribbing from the same PC World article: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3162084/storage/seagates-road...) As there's already over 100 comments on the other submissions, the "dupe" is a pointer to the earlier discussion. While not a link to exactly the same article, using "dupe" to indicate this is not uncommon here on HN.
Thanks @grzm didn't see that one. "Dupe". Not uncommon (HNr for 10yrs in a month), inaccurate though. I wish HNs would be specific, because I interpret "dupe" as literally "duplicate" article. Better to highlight earlier, better discussion and link.
I'm not sure I understand. I'm looking for a succinct way of expressing "this is nearly the same submission as this other one that already has a substantial discussion: you should likely comment over there".
As I understand what you've said, nothing should be done as it's not an exact dupe? I don't see how that's helpful, as what would essentially be the same discussion would be potentially split across two (or more) submission threads.
Or if you're saying it should be flagged [dupe] (as opposed to having a comment note that it's a dupe), I'm not sure I see much of a meaningful distinction between a [dupe] flag and a "dupe:" comment.
I suspect I'm not interpreting what you've said correctly. Thanks for your patience :)
