It'd be a really cool if there was a browser plugin that showed you the provenance of any news you read. Like first appeared here, then here then here....

*Without burning coals in every corner of the planet when a simple trusted db suffices at 0.01% of the cost

I've noticed that HN has a bizarre preference for really strange news outlets and blogs over more credible and reputable outlets. Like..there will be some major news even in tech or science and HN is like "link to a major site? Naaaaah, Joenews.com!"

Major news outlets carry a small ranking penalty on HN (it's in the software), since loads of uninteresting articles from major news outlets are constantly submitted.

The URL can always be changed if there's a better source. Just email them.

Major outlets get skipped for pay wall shenanigans. Known sources essentially aren’t worth clicking on, since you can’t read them anyways.

This is an internet culture problem in general. People have decided they can't trust the "mainstream media", possibly for valid reasons, and then fall face-first into trusting all sorts of completely random sites. Your other comment is very correct.

I think it's mostly because editorializing titles is not allowed. So to emphasize the part you deem most important in a story, you have to find an article that uses it as the title.

I've also wondered this - but I assumed it was more because most people post on HN after seeing it elsewhere. As the more 'strange' outlets (often) favour clickbait titles they get more shares/go viral more often (because people love to share without reading the full article). So I figure there's a greater chance someone will see the stranger version on social media over the (perhaps) stuffier/dryer version with the decent reporting from a more credible and less clickbaity outlet.

As an aside, HN is usually pretty good about switching the link for something better when prompted.

I wonder whether it is more a timing issue. Mainstream sites are submitted first, but overlooked. Subsequent submissions have to use other sites and those are the ones which finally gain traction.

Interesting. I saw it on Drudge Report and hadn’t seen it discussed here. DDG gave it a B+ so I just assumed it was reputable

I think DDG's site scoring is based on how many invasive trackers and advertising it has and not if a site's information is reputable. Though someone please correct me if I'm wrong?

That is correct.

Be interesting if they started to also add reputable content info to their site ranking .... like utilize one of those non-profit fact checking sites and score them based on how many of their articles over a period (3 to 6 months) or long periods of time (a year) was not factual .. truth bent ... etc.

If it was done well and became popular it might cut down on clickbait and the tons of trash that is pushed out as truth but isn't.

Looking at Drudge Report was your first mistake

It's good to see what the other team is doing sometimes. I've seen stuff on DR that other places didn't host but was still interesting. It's not in the same OMGWTF category as newsmax or OAN despite what some HN people will tell you.

Lately I've seen HN people linking to sites like Newswars (which is infowars rebranded, it seems) and whatnot.

> It's not in the same OMGWTF category as newsmax or OAN despite what some HN people will tell you.

Drudge has a history chock full of conspiracy theories, retractions and dirty-deletes. All of which center around attacking liberal politicians or causes to "own" or "gotcha" them.

Seriously, read the list that includes Obama birther conspiracies, Las Vegas shooting conspiracies, "immigrants setting wildfires" conspiracies (from Breitbart), and perpetuating hoaxes like "black man attacked McCain campaign staffer!": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drudge_Report

Agreed.

Fair…