The Visible Zorker: Zork 3

True, but since you're responding to my post, I'll clarify that I do know what Zork is and my objection was to linking to a legendary name without any relevant context such as which version of Zork and no explanation of the Z-Machine interpreter. Especially when Infocom, ZIL, the Z-Machine and Zork have already been the subject of so much retro archaeology, commentary and even subsequent enhancement and expansion. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48028352

look under the leaves.... Zork is still a work of art to me

I clicked in because, being quite a retro-head, I do know the legendary name Zork (although I've yet to actually play it) and am well aware of Infocom text adventures in general (having read more than one historical retrospective on Infocom over the years as well as having played Hitchhiker's Guide on my Amiga in the mid-80s). My post was only to thank the GP for linking to the page which should have been linked in the first place. Then I went on to make a broader point about the increasing frequency of other 'mystery posts' on HN lately even though, admittedly, this wasn't an especially egregious example.

Unlike some mystery posts, in this case, the mystery for me wasn't "What is this?" It was "Okay, I see a playable Zork output on the left and, apparently, the Z-Machine source script on the right" but which version of Zork this and, before investing many hours, what is this interactive play-through intended to explore? Although early interactive fiction isn't my retro focus, I've always wanted to play at least one version of Zork, and even I know the Z-Machine source for most versions of most Infocom adventures has been available for many years, including most (but not all) platform ports. So, if you know anything about Infocom adventures or early interactive fiction preservation, you know some context is expected when presenting such a legendary classic.

Preservationists are still searching for lost versions, ports, betas, etc of notable early interactive fiction titles (and few are as notable as Zork). From time to time, one of these is discovered and archived, leading to much rejoicing and new retrospective sessions at interactive fiction conferences. There are even passionate opinions on which versions count as "the original" (there can be more than one!), which is considered most "canonically complete", and even which subsequent compilations, translations, corrections, decomp/recomps, extensions or even remakes are "good for a first-time play-through". For example, when I did my first play-through of the legendary Colossal Cave Adventure last year, I may have spent as much time exploring which version I wanted to experience as actually playing it (full disclosure: I cheated with a guide because I've always sucked at interactive fiction). That's not as crazy as it sounds since the "Incomplete taxonomy of CCA versions & forks" may have more nodes than a map of the huge Cave in the game! https://mipmip.org/advfamily/advfamily.html. Frankly, I enjoyed learning about the origin, architecture and evolution of CCA more than playing it - but, as I said, IF has never been my thing.

Much like the lost 1960s Doctor Who episodes that were recently found, a new version of a notable title can be big deal in the interactive fiction sub-community and anything by Infocom (especially with the name Zork) would be significant. So, linking on HN directly to an interactive play-through of "Zork" with nothing but the Z-Machine source alongside, instead of linking to the parent page with the context, version and what this interactive experience will explore - is like posting "Beatles Song" on a forum frequented by hardcore early rock fans but only linking directly to a two hour-long mp3 of Beatles songs with zero context as to whether it's newly found rehearsal cuts, an AI segmentation into source stems, or just a mix tape of your Mom's favorite songs. Hence, the first post being another poster linking to the context page with my +1 response.