Context: I submitted this URL earlier today: Hacking strength: Gaining muscle with least resistance, which was briefly on the front page: https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=10789547<p>One user declared it spam, and as I was writing my response (which is submitted as a comment below), I found that not only was the submission pulled (which, fine, lots of things get pulled), but now I can&#x27;t even comment on it because it&#x27;s in some special spam deadzone. One user who is apparently well-versed in exercise declares it to be &quot;bullshit fluff piece&quot; with Amazon product links and so that makes it spam? In my response which I couldn&#x27;t submit, I explain how I came across the piece and why I enjoyed it. But on the merits of the piece itself: There&#x27;s more than 2-3 thousand words, and according to this Unix script:<p><pre><code>    curl -s http:&#x2F;&#x2F;matt.might.net&#x2F;articles&#x2F;hacking-strength&#x2F; | grep -o amazon.com&#x2F;gp&#x2F;product&#x2F;[[:alnum:]]* | sort | uniq | wc -l
</code></pre>
35 Amazon product links, 16 of them unique. Is that a lot? I guess? The OP (according to my ublock) loads only the Amazon URLs and a Google banner at the bottom. Do I wish that the author, when linking to &quot;creatine&quot;, linked to the many studies and discussions on its efficacy (and also, rebuttals to it)? Sure. But he covers a lot of ground here, and I didn&#x27;t see the focus as the science, but him describing his exact steps as a blueprint that worked for <i>him</i> and the context of those steps.<p>My response that I had originally written talks more specifically about the relevance of the OP and why I find his fitness routine interesting is posted as a separate comment below:
Ask HN: Is this all it takes to get flagged as spam?