[mattgreenrocks]

Going to skip the analogy, because everyone has tortured it sufficiently already.

This is a good point. The comment section implicitly argues for novelty because it seeks a dopamine hit for something new -- after all, that's what people are looking for when they browse an aggregator! However, novel isn't everything even if you get more Internet points for it.

Is it original to execute something really well? Some would say yes, and some would say no. Lots of software that has had an outsized impact started out as very similar to other things, with "just" some improvements here and there. And I guarantee you there were over-eager commenters telling people to not be excited because it isn't new enough to them.

This isn't arguing for toxic positivity, either. Just a recognition that the bored/cynical users need for novelty is not something that everything listed on the Internet has to fill.