pretty easy to see when they don't get traction / get flagged automatically.
the only thing it really does is prevent others from seeing what's being censored.
the only thing it really does is prevent others from seeing what's being censored.
or they may think the content itself is the problem and spend resources trying to tweak it.
I think an analogous situation would be saying if the username/email is valid when there is a failed logged in attempt. Its a very minor thing but why give someone who is trying to abuse the system any help?
A spam site knows it's a spam site. It's already tweaking domains and thats why the list is so big. It's relatively easy to buy new domains.
For the remaining 5-10% of legitimate sites I imagine HN isn't enough of a draw to care about tweaking content. They will save that level of curation for the Twitters, Facebooks, and maybe reddits in some cases.
>I think an analogous situation would be saying if the username/email is valid when there is a failed logged in attempt. Its a very minor thing but why give someone who is trying to abuse the system any help?
It does bring up the honest question of "how much do you inconvinence honest users in order to punish dishonest users"? And honestly it's a bit tiring to keep being assumed that I'm a dishonest user. If you trust me so little as to give an IQ test just to let me post a link (reducto ad absurdum), why would I bother as an honest user? Meanwhile the dishonest users will simply work around that or hire some cheap labor.