101–110 of 125 posts
I received 3 downvotes for a link to XKCD suggesting that readers lack a sense of humour. No one felt like leaving a comment stating why they downvoted.
constructive critics is very hard. By cc i mean comments that will not make feel poster like complete idiot, but rather gently stimulate him to rethink something about his idea, and went away with feeling of appreciation of your insightful efforts to help him.
one of my teachers told me: its easy to punch your opponent in the face. its much harder to kindly explain him why is he wrong in his intents, so that after that conversation he would ask you to become his sensei.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not the only one discontented with the state of the community. It's gotten so bad here that I can't convince half the programmers I know that this place is any better than a cult locked in a warehouse. Almost no one I know takes anything anybody says here seriously, even if the content stream is marginally better than the alternatives. The focus has shifted from intelligent and thoughtful writing seeded by your…
Actually there was more business-oriented boosterism when we first launched. The site was called "Startup News" initially. The top stories don't seem visibly worse than they were in the good old days, whenever those were. There are more dumb and/or mean comments than there used to be, but they usually end up at the bottom of the page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's not the only one discontented with the state of the community. It's gotten so bad here that I can't convince half the programmers I know that this place is any better than a cult locked in a warehouse. Almost no one I know takes anything anybody says here seriously, even if the content stream is marginally better than the alternatives. The focus has shifted from intelligent and thoughtful writing seeded by your…
Actually there was more business-oriented boosterism when we first launched. The site was called "Startup News" initially. The top stories don't seem visibly worse than they were in the good old days, whenever those were. There are more dumb and/or mean comments than there used to be, but they usually end up at the bottom of the page.
We probably agree more than we don't. I might as well drop this albatross since I don't have any real conclusions to draw or ideas to advocate.
Back to code.
There's criticism and there's negativity. You seem to be confusing these two things. You can put your point across without snarky comments like: "Vertical list of applications??? Microsoft what have you been smoking?" (As we're quoting rap lyrics today) I think that you'll be doing just fine if you relax a little.
"Actually there were no HTML5 stuff shown in the demo, I can code those effects to work with IE6. In fact that demo may even work in IE6 if you would include some hacks."
I mean does this sound mean?
Based on a cursory look at your comments I would guess the problem is not what you say but how.
Consider your question here > Is HN only about saying nice things about everything? This implies fault lies with HN. You make the assumption that you are right (despite your PS). A better question is: > I'd like to contribute; can anyone offer advice to improve my comments? Humility, and no assumption. Again, here: > I don't know maybe it's me, maybe I have too radical opinions on stuff. Again, this is conceited. It'…
If I write something like " is a load of crap in my opinion" I don't mind getting downvoted, but a lof of times I get downvoted even when I am strict and technical, and again this won't bother me if people would supply a response.
Having a "well formed" comment simply downvoted is equal to simply replying that "Your comment is so crap that it's not even worth my time to explain why.".
> You've generated discussion.
Yes it seems that there is a way to do this properly, as I wrote I still get downvoted, even when I'm polite, but it looks like the bright people greatly outnumber the others here in HN.
Everyone can be a dick, sometimes. Heck, I'm probably a dick the majority of the time, but I decided a while back to be nicer to people on the Internet. That's part of the reason I upvote people who prove me wrong and thank them for it. If my horizons are expanded, or my assumptions challenged here and they stand on their own two feet then great. If not, then even better - I'm less wrong, so to speak.
The thing about this community is that brings together people like Zed Shaw and Seth Godin, two people I regard as polar opposites, each with their own focus. The people on the Seth side of the fence will be perhaps more likely to be turned off by the Zed Shaws of the world, as is vice versa.
Challenging them is fine and should be encouraged. Giving them grief, less so.
Usually when I read a techcrunch article posted here, I feel as though I die a little inside. Still, people like Gabriel, Patrick, Colin and even Thomas stand out to me as guys that I enjoy reading.
When criticising, it might help to consider the following:
* What does my comment add to the discussion?
* Can my comment be interpreted in a way other than how I intended it? (In which case a rewrite may be in order)
* How will other readers perceive what I write? (as an extension of the last one).
You get out what you put in. If you want to criticise, fine. But please do so in a constructive manner.
Any HN'ers got any more ideas for constructive criticism?
This is one of several diseases in HackerNews. There's a whole spectrum of ways to disagree, all of which have value in the right situation. Here, a good portion of that spectrum has been lobbed off in the name of niceness and nothing more. Is it worth it? Decide for yourself. I say nay. Bonus disease: PG worship. Don't get me wrong, he's a brilliant guy; we're all here (directly or indirectly) because of him. But it…
I agree about the PG-worship or whatever you want to call it. I preferred to absent myself from here for a while after it got real bad (to the point of the first article commonly being a 2-3 year old essay that had bubbled to the top AGAIN), simply because I felt fundamentally outside of the norm here - I rarely agree with anything PG says in its entirety. Paul is a thoughtful enough person that I've never felt that…
I tend to upvote anything that seems coherent and interesting, not just the stuff I agree with. If I ever get to the point where I'm allowed to downvote, I'll exercise that privilege only to mod down trolls, spammers, or very bad style. Everything else can much better be handled by replying to an entry and having an actual discussion.
So am I mistaken? What is the mod system for, officially? Quality control or consensus building?
What does this mean?
Good attempt at spelling and punctuation. Don't curse too much, don't use excessive punctuation, proofread. Reread your post objectively and ask yourself 'am I trolling'. Attempt to make an argument supported by facts and intelligent reasoning.
Don't bother complaining about karma when someone down votes you for posting an unpopular opinion or being wrong. You posted an unpopular opinion or didn't check your facts thoroughly enough, what did you expect? With that 1 karma and a cup of coffee, you can sell the cup of coffee for a dollar.
Also, check your facts and post relevant links.
(So pretty much pretend like you are a hybrid of on a date, writing a term paper, and applying for a job, rather than posting on an internet forum.
Everyone posts a clunker once in a while, but try not to get too worked up about it. After all, this is entertainment, not serious business.