291–300 of 305 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, there's a grammatical error: "We check our mail dozen times a day." No. We check our mail a dozen times a day.
They're Lithuanian. I'm guessing English is not their first language. Seeing the number of possessive its with an apostrophe on HN I can cope with someone using English as a second language making a minor grammar error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, there's a grammatical error: "We check our mail dozen times a day." No. We check our mail a dozen times a day.
They're Lithuanian. I'm guessing English is not their first language. Seeing the number of possessive its with an apostrophe on HN I can cope with someone using English as a second language making a minor grammar error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, there's a grammatical error: "We check our mail dozen times a day." No. We check our mail a dozen times a day.
So they check it exactly one dozen times per day? Your correction also doesn't seem valid. Perhaps they meant to write that "We check our mail dozens of time per day." First impressions are very important; I too find copy errors an indication of an inadequate effort to communicate effectively. However, that doesn't validate a malicious attempt to bash the writer(s) when a simple correction would have sufficed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, there's a grammatical error: "We check our mail dozen times a day." No. We check our mail a dozen times a day.
Not to spoil the pile on, but I think that's just a mistake. You know, the kind humans make? That said, I agree the redesign is misguided. But it's certainly gotten them some attention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I mean, yes, by all means get involved and help improve it. I don't think you understand just how toxic some parts of the community are.
> I don't think you understand just how toxic some parts of the community are. Oh, I do.. which is why I know you're talking about editors, not coders/designers, i.e. the ones it actually concerns. But even if it was true for all of Wikipedia -- so? What is making some mockups and a (kinda pompous IMHO) domain name going to achieve in that case? Even less. This is a bunch of designers talking to a bunch of designers,…
This "redesign" is horrible for reasons that everyone gives in this thread. I agree.
There are some design changes that could be made to Wikipedia to make things easier for editors (and for regular editors) - see, for example, the wall of text at the head of some meta pages such as the main page, or ANI, or etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hilarious from the start - first thing they do is throw out the logo that incorporates multiple languages and says 'fuck you, we're going English for Wiki'. They compound this by then making all the various logos English-derived, so these guys have basically shouted to the world that they don't grasp the basics of their client. They even propose a feature that shows everyone how much English dominates the other…
Extend the same argument. They probably said 'fuck you, we're going English for Wikipedia' instead of Enzyklopädie or whatever like every other recognizable brand worldwide. Let's face it, English is the universal language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is a search engine designed to be fully functional in its simplicity. Wikipedia is a community. If you use Wikipedia only as a search engine, you are missing out.
I'm not. I only ever use wikipedia the same way I would use an encyclopedia - to look up facts. I'm entirely uninterested in the community, just as I'm uninterested in the individual contributors to an encyclopedia. The article makes some silly points, but it also makes some good ones. The front page of wikipedia shouldn't be mainly comprised of a list of languages - that's useless to most people. It should mainly be…
How much page real estate does a page have to have devoted to what essentially boils down to typing a query into a search bar and pressing enter before it's considered "mainly about search"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also the capital "I" in the font they're using is killing me. This is the main thing I remember after reading what seemed like an otherwise interesting study.
And it wasn't even consistant. They used the same character for the first letter of "Jimmy" and "It". I first thought it was a weird font with a weird I, but then say "Iimmy" and had to re-read.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they check it exactly one dozen times per day? Your correction also doesn't seem valid. Perhaps they meant to write that "We check our mail dozens of time per day." First impressions are very important; I too find copy errors an indication of an inadequate effort to communicate effectively. However, that doesn't validate a malicious attempt to bash the writer(s) when a simple correction would have sufficed.
Sorry, but: 1. That would still be ungrammatical, 2. The parent was a simple correction, and 3. There was absolutely nothing malicious about it.
Asides from that, why post a correction here? Only other HN readers are going to see it, which inherently means you aren't writing the comment in the hopes of them fixing it, but to show the error to other commenters. Perhaps malicious was the wrong term, but your comment certainly wasn't trying to help them improve their copy.