Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 100 posts

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#91

Post by alecbz »

cxr wrote: post #90
alecbz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those sound like proposed solutions, not the underlying concerns. Motivating concerns here might be things like "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info", "people will unknowingly install spyware".

> Those sound like proposed solutions Yes. > not the underlying concerns The stated concern embedded in the first example is "anyone would be able to edit the wiki". > Motivating concerns here might be things like "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info", "people will unknowingly install spyware". Right. That's the point. The concern that "anyone would be able to edit the wiki" is not a valid concern. The concern t…

I don't think this means "most concerns aren't valid", it's more "people aren't always good at vocalizing their underlying concerns, and instead treat a proposed solution as the concern".

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#92

Post by cxr »

alecbz wrote: post #91
cxr wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those sound like proposed solutions Yes. > not the underlying concerns The stated concern embedded in the first example is "anyone would be able to edit the wiki". > Motivating concerns here might be things like "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info", "people will unknowingly install spyware". Right. That's the point. The concern that "anyone would be able to edit the wiki" is not a valid concern. The concern t…

I don't think this means "most concerns aren't valid", it's more "people aren't always good at vocalizing their underlying concerns, and instead treat a proposed solution as the concern".

Your distinction between stated concerns and underlying concerns is a red herring.

If their underlying concern is "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info because the wiki is open", and if that's empirically shown that opening the wiki doesn't produce a wiki full of inaccurate info, then it's an invalid concern. Neither it (the "underlying concern") nor the stated concern are valid.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#93

Post by trjordan »

dorksquad wrote: post #64
trjordan wrote: post #18

As a pratical lens on this advice: people are excellent at giving feedback on their problems. They are terrible at identifying how to fix it. "It felt too long" was right. The solution was not to make the story shorter. The solution was to look at the parts that felt long, and believe that feedback. If you're building something, and your users tell you it's complicated or it's slow or it's not useful, they're right!…

> "It felt too long" was right. The solution was not to make the story shorter. The solution was to look at the parts that felt long, and believe that feedback. smells like LLM

lol sorry, I just spend to much time on LinkedIn, I think. I promise this was 100% human-written.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#94

Post by alecbz »

cxr wrote: post #92
alecbz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this means "most concerns aren't valid", it's more "people aren't always good at vocalizing their underlying concerns, and instead treat a proposed solution as the concern".

Your distinction between stated concerns and underlying concerns is a red herring. If their underlying concern is "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info because the wiki is open", and if that's empirically shown that opening the wiki doesn't produce a wiki full of inaccurate info, then it's an invalid concern. Neither it (the "underlying concern") nor the stated concern are valid.

There's no need to tack on "because the wiki is open". That's still just part of a solution seeping into the statement of the problem.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#95

Post by cxr »

alecbz wrote: post #94
cxr wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your distinction between stated concerns and underlying concerns is a red herring. If their underlying concern is "our wiki will be full of inaccurate info because the wiki is open", and if that's empirically shown that opening the wiki doesn't produce a wiki full of inaccurate info, then it's an invalid concern. Neither it (the "underlying concern") nor the stated concern are valid.

There's no need to tack on "because the wiki is open". That's still just part of a solution seeping into the statement of the problem.

You're not engaging with the premise. There is no problem involving a wiki that is full of junk and that locking it down is a way to solve that. The concern is that it would be filled with junk if flipped from closed to open.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#96

Post by vintermann »

justonceokay wrote: post #42
trjordan wrote: post #18

As a pratical lens on this advice: people are excellent at giving feedback on their problems. They are terrible at identifying how to fix it. "It felt too long" was right. The solution was not to make the story shorter. The solution was to look at the parts that felt long, and believe that feedback. If you're building something, and your users tell you it's complicated or it's slow or it's not useful, they're right!…

I’ve heard exactly the same advice re: focus groups. A focus group can give excellent feedback but terrible advice. Probably applies to comment sections in the modern day too. So if they didn’t like your movie the movie probably is bad. But don’t listen to them about what they would change about the movie. They don’t know anything about the creative process.

The strength of a focus group is (or should be, anyway) that it's representative. It makes sense that their overall reception of a work is a more accurate estimate of its eventual popularity than the maker's.

However, the maker has tried many things, and among them will be things which are obviously bad (to anyone) if you actually try it.

Story time: in 2008, I went to the big board game fair in Essen and got to try the then-new game Dominion. I think most people who did, knew that this game was going to be hugely popular and influential, which it was. Donald X. Vaccarino is a really, really good game designer. And sure enough, it spawned the genre of deck building games, games where you build a deck as you play (as opposed to collectible card games, which are an important ancestor). But the first few attempts to adopt improve on the formula were pretty lousy.

What's interesting is that Donald X. posted dev diaries, writing at length about what he had tried and rejected. And although I'm pretty sure he did not follow the Dominion-likes closely (the dev diaries may even have been written before many of them), the things he'd tried and rejected were exactly what the Dominion-likes tried to add as their twist. Multiple currencies, like Thunderstone had, he'd tried rejected because it was too high variance. "Pick one of the cards on offer" like Ascension had, he'd also tried first, and found that the game was deeper and more fun if everyone had access to buy the same cards. (The "Pick one of three" mechanic would turn out to work much better in solo/computer games, however, as Slay the Spire's success is proof of!)

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#97

Post by vintermann »

SJMG wrote: post #70
TulliusCicero wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true for casual users, but if you're getting feedback from enthusiasts or even experts, their solutions are often -- not always, but often -- quite good.

Yes. People who live and breathe your product should absolutely be listened to. Especially when they don't have the super-user tools you do for support (or unconsciously rounding off sharp edges).

But they may not be a very representative user. Especially for things like games, they may be far removed from what originally got them into it.

Fan-modded games are often great fun if you're seriously into a game. But they're rarely better if you've never played the game.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#98

Post by sevenseacat »

protocolture wrote: post #76
lmm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the developers should've put more porn in. (Hell, a lot of the time they know the game should have more sex, but leave it to the modders because of instructions from above and/or to maintain plausible deniability).

Bethesda does have sort of a weird hangup on that front, at least since Daggerfall where you could disrobe the characters. Bethesda has quite a unique approach to everything. Its almost a joke at this point where most of their negative reviews are demanding more content after 300 hours of gameplay. I knew a guy who bought Oblivion at launch and played it for 2 weeks straight before declaring it trash. I would like Be…

Reminds me of all of the Elder Scrolls Online players who use guides to speedrun their way to max level, BIS gear, etc. and then complain that there's nothing to do. My guy/gal, you deliberately skipped the entire game

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#99

Post by SJMG »

vintermann wrote: post #97
SJMG wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. People who live and breathe your product should absolutely be listened to. Especially when they don't have the super-user tools you do for support (or unconsciously rounding off sharp edges).

But they may not be a very representative user. Especially for things like games, they may be far removed from what originally got them into it. Fan-modded games are often great fun if you're seriously into a game. But they're rarely better if you've never played the game.

It's true. There's probably not a clean rule for when to listen and when not to.

I would propose as a heuristic that for the early stage, when your product relies on true-fans, you at least consider the content of a complaint more and don't just treat it as a signal that something somewhere is wrong. Bringing it back to the OP, I'm sure this is what Card did himself.

Re: You don't need advice from editors on rejected manuscripts

#100

Post by peddling-brink »

dorksquad wrote: post #81
peddling-brink wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Smells like LLM Smells like not adding value to the discussion.

LLM writing is not adding value to the discussion. The slightly inflated rhetoric whose tells are false contrast and unnecessary parallelism let me know that a human did not spend time writing that comment. Why should humans spend time reading it?

I read the same thing and didn’t get that vibe. The parent comment added to the discussion regardless of origin.
Post reply on HN