3 ms·

Great, take your own advice and point out that the "Pottery Barn rule" is misleading. They don't have such a rule and in most states it would be illegal to enf

by apathy 10y ago

Great, take your own advice and point out that the "Pottery Barn rule" is misleading. They don't have such a rule and in most states it would be illegal to enforce if they did. You are promulgating misleading information with your click bait title. "Take my advice, I'm not using it!" Or is the point that journals should mislead readers about their policies on misleading readers? I'm so confused!

jones1618 10y ago
Sanjay was very clear that the "Pottery Barn Rule" is convenient and commonly understood shorthand for "You break it, you buy it" even though it isn't actually based on a policy of the store. So what? How possibly does using this coined term invalidate the rest of his good argument? It is a fantastic idea.
- apathy 10y ago
  Where does he say this? I read the post again and did not see it. As far as why it deflates the thrust of the post, I like to think I was excruciatingly explicit.
  - jones1618 10y ago
    You're right, he didn't say it in the article. He may have said as much in reddit comments, though. I'm not sure. However, his first mention did link to Pottery Barn Rule @ Wkikpedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule) which says why the term shouldn't be taken literally true in the 2nd paragraph.
    - apathy 10y ago
      Right, when a simple footnote in the piece would have clarified the matter rather than derailing the whole piece. If only there were some way to rectify such things on the Internet, where words are not physically committed to paper. We might call it "editing". It need not even require a professional editor. Some people might even do it in trivial forms such as message board comments. Do you see where I am going here? For less effort than you and I and the author expended discussing the flaw, it could have been corrected in situ and the piece itself can become stronger. This is why good writers revise so often. It is astonishingly rare for the first version of a piece to communicate exactly what you intend to exactly whom you intended, and even then it may turn out that your opinions have evolved or your audience has broadened or shifted. It is more efficient to incorporate constructive criticism than to rebut it, in some situations. Given the mutability of words on the Internet, the only two real explanations are "I meant to do that" or "I don't care enough to edit it".

by apathy 10y ago

jones1618 10y ago

Sanjay was very clear that the "Pottery Barn Rule" is convenient and commonly understood shorthand for "You break it, you buy it" even though it isn't actually based on a policy of the store. So what? How possibly does using this coined term invalidate the rest of his good argument? It is a fantastic idea.

apathy 10y ago
Where does he say this? I read the post again and did not see it. As far as why it deflates the thrust of the post, I like to think I was excruciatingly explicit.
- jones1618 10y ago
  You're right, he didn't say it in the article. He may have said as much in reddit comments, though. I'm not sure. However, his first mention did link to Pottery Barn Rule @ Wkikpedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottery_Barn_rule) which says why the term shouldn't be taken literally true in the 2nd paragraph.
  - apathy 10y ago
    Right, when a simple footnote in the piece would have clarified the matter rather than derailing the whole piece. If only there were some way to rectify such things on the Internet, where words are not physically committed to paper. We might call it "editing". It need not even require a professional editor. Some people might even do it in trivial forms such as message board comments. Do you see where I am going here? For less effort than you and I and the author expended discussing the flaw, it could have been corrected in situ and the piece itself can become stronger. This is why good writers revise so often. It is astonishingly rare for the first version of a piece to communicate exactly what you intend to exactly whom you intended, and even then it may turn out that your opinions have evolved or your audience has broadened or shifted. It is more efficient to incorporate constructive criticism than to rebut it, in some situations. Given the mutability of words on the Internet, the only two real explanations are "I meant to do that" or "I don't care enough to edit it".