I feel like half of what I see here is advertisements thinly disguised as blog posts. Now this company needs to promote itself a second time by calling attention to the first time it promoted itself?
"Show HN" is already kind of meta, so this definitely strikes me as meta-meta. I think the main problem here is the post title: "We did a SHOW HN and it landed on the front page of Hacker News". Good for you. Really. That's an accomplishment, or exciting to say the least. But by definition there are hundreds of front-page links a day -- we don't need a briefing on all of them. What would be next, "We did a post about our front-page experience that landed on the front page."?
The best part of this article was seeing what they did wrong, how they listened to the feedback and made changes.
Maybe a bit wordy, but I would have gone with something like, "What we learned we were doing wrong when our Show HN landed on the front page."
To play devil's advocate: Sometimes analyzing the results of a traffic spike can be interesting and worth sharing. I've seen other post-mortem analyses much better than this one, and I personally don't regard this as too spammy.
The best part of this article was seeing what they did wrong, how they listened to the feedback and made changes.
Maybe a bit wordy, but I would have gone with something like, "What we learned we were doing wrong when our Show HN landed on the front page."