So this website does what exactly? Summarizes things? I'm discarding it as blog spam. Link the actual video not an article with a loose description begging for page views based on somebody elses content, and then they ask you to donate at the bottom of the page.
Probably because his comment also does not conform to the site guidelines, which say that if you feel something doesn't belong then you should simply flag it and move on.
Having said that, I probably should've done my usual and clicked through to find the original source, rather than being lazy and using the bookmarklet to submit it. Mea culpa. I would delete, do my research, and submit the original, but this now has points and comments, so to do so would look like karma whoring.
Not only does it add nothing to the original (amazing) content, but what it does try to add is kind of a mess: the "cue" of C? Try to catch her "sleight" against copyright?
EDIT to add: I wouldn't call any article that summarizes or comments on other content "blogspam", although this one probably qualifies. It would seem to depend on whether the commentary actually adds anything. Also, HN's guidelines recommend doing this kind of thing if one wants to include some commentary with a link.
Yes, I consider the site to be a little disingenuous. I actually did a disingenuous thing myself, and watched the site owner queue up posts one time at a conference, and it was a mad dash of anything interesting and about 100 tabs stacked, popped, and restacked.
Now, it could be a cool site with links, but the astounding overhead of all of the JS and crud that comes with the site, and the dubious opportunistic way in which it operates is pretty tough for me.
There are some ties to people like Jer Thorp who also manages to somehow mention his own Twitter handle in tweets as if it might get lost out there that he indeed tweeted whatever it was, anyway, it gets very tedious to watch the the rolling wave of new people that get suckered in to the scheme. Some seem to pick up on what is going on and move on eventually.
I wish I could articulate better ways to call out these kinds of abuses but they're so subtle, and the echo chamber so new to the thing themselves, that it is hard to get the message through.
Indeed - I hadn't seen that, and it was only after the complaint was made that I found the original. And again, mea culpa - I apologise.
That said, it was this link that turned up in my feed, and when I thought the HN crowd might like it I clicked the bookmarklet, so submitting it. The blogspam aspect was not intentional.
I'm quite glad when good links get a second chance, whomever ends up posting it. Shame there's not a proper way to revitalize content that, for whatever reason, fails to get attention.
