I'd update the HN submission url to the actual source, i.e. either the above game url, or its "how to play" section at https://pell.achromath.com/how-to-play .
Currently the submission points to a third party review of the game - IMO it seems more appropriate as a comment.
If the review is about a casual web game and if instead of reading quotes, your impression and your ads I can experience the game myself then yes we should point to the product.
The game is here: https://pell.achromath.com
I'd update the HN submission url to the actual source, i.e. either the above game url, or its "how to play" section at https://pell.achromath.com/how-to-play .
Currently the submission points to a third party review of the game - IMO it seems more appropriate as a comment.
Wait. So if I write a review/article about a product the HN link should be changed to point to the product not my review? That makes no sense.
If the review is about a casual web game and if instead of reading quotes, your impression and your ads I can experience the game myself then yes we should point to the product.
What ads are you talking about? There are 0 ads on my site!
House ads do count.
So... how long before this gets added to Simon Tatham's puzzle collection? (https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/puzzles/)
Why do incomplete paths light up the corresponding number? I don't understand this UI choice.
Author here, can someone explain what happened here? I submitted this article 2 days ago and 1 upvote and it got some how resubmitted today?
second chance pool
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308