51–55 of 55 posts
I used to, but I'm trying not to anymore. I've seen enough instances where the top comment was either irrelevant or outright wrong about the article in question.
Based on the responses/replies here - Perhaps it is time to retire one of the HN guidelines namely - Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." since it seems a lot of people haven't actually RTFA when posting comments.
The point of the guideline is, I think, that saying "Did you even read the article?" adds nothing of value, just spite and bad feelings to HN, and on top of that, wastes our time. The guideline isn't about reading the article or not, but being a jerk or not.
Based on the responses/replies here - Perhaps it is time to retire one of the HN guidelines namely - Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." since it seems a lot of people haven't actually RTFA when posting comments.
The point of the guideline is, I think, that saying "Did you even read the article?" adds nothing of value, just spite and bad feelings to HN, and on top of that, wastes our time. The guideline isn't about reading the article or not, but being a jerk or not.
Have you ever seen a "Did you RTFA?" just as a single comment with nothing else?
Honest question because I've never seen that but may have missed some.
9 out 10 times never read the article - comments often shine the light that there is a better X that is open source, or that the thing I wanted when reading the title is Mac or IOS only - save me the click and the time. I do try to read the article / thing if I am going to comment - but that's not many. Many times the comments let me know that other needed thing is not released yet - or that no pricing info is publis…
I do this, but it's a dangerous trap to assume that the commenters are more reliable or a better authority than the articles themselves. The articles have a filter that someone has gone to the "effort" of writing up an article, and it takes a lot of upvotes to get to the front page. The commentary has no such filter. It's very easy to shoot down ideas on HN in the comments and get rewarded for it, especially if it's…
when people mention mac only (big thanks to those who do this!) - I tend to just believe and move on.
with some projects I open tabs for the article and all the alternatives people mention bookmark to dig into later.
So my methods are not always this or that - but as a general 'way of HN' for me, these methods are what makes HN a great time saver in general, but not always.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of the guideline is, I think, that saying "Did you even read the article?" adds nothing of value, just spite and bad feelings to HN, and on top of that, wastes our time. The guideline isn't about reading the article or not, but being a jerk or not.
Perhaps. But I don't think I've ever seen just a "Did you read the article?" on it's own eg as a single - "Did you read the article?" rather than a "Did you read the article? Because it clearly said/stated/made the point that .....". Have you ever seen a "Did you RTFA?" just as a single comment with nothing else? Honest question because I've never seen that but may have missed some.
Besides that, I don't understand your first paragraph, what you're trying to say, why you mention the phrase on its own. I had a similar feeling reading your initial comment - no idea why you would say that. I'm missing something, not sure what. "Since a lot of people don't read the article, we don't need the rule against saying 'Did you read the article?'" makes no sense to me as a piece of reasoning. The conclusion of the argument seems to have nothing to do with the premise(s). Whether 0%, 50% or 100% of people read the article would make no difference to the value of that rule, seems to me.