Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Why not link the original Krebs article? http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/10/silk-road-lawyers-poke-ho...

Ok, we changed to that from http://blog.erratasec.com/2014/10/reading-silk-road-configur..., which points to it.

Please, change it back. These are completely different articles, and most of comments here are about the first one.

Also the new one is not accessible due to server overload.

Ok, done.

Thanks for all the work you do to make this place a little bit better every day.

You're welcome! I appreciate your saying so.

Thank you!

Seriously how is this constructive? We let people up vote and comment on an article and then swap it out to something else leaving all the comments and up votes?

HackerNews, you frustrate me.

This seems like a mistake. The original posted article wasn't blogspam. It commented on the krebs article. Adding detailed commentary to a source has a long and valid history.

Maybe we could have a whitelist, where non-blogspam blogs get a 'pass' on being edited. In this case, the Errata Sec blog provides much more value than some crappy blog spam and stands on it own. (Errata sec provides a desired value-add, you might say.)

I don't know why you (HN administration) need to do these URL switches. Isn't their room on the internet to add a line "Editor (dang): original source appears to be https://example.com/original-source" and let people decide for themselves which source to use whilst maintaining the context for the discussion?

oh HN, the articles are completely different with one general and the other technically detailed.

That would have been the far better choice. I don't know how this article got to #1 on HN (see my other comment).

Applications are open for YC Summer 2018

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact