5 ms·

"Lowering the bar" and "lowering barriers" are two very different things that you are conflating.

johnisgood 8y ago
Is it? I have seen them used in the exact same way. For example: lowering barriers to entry to a university is lowering the bar. Are they not the same thing?
- finnh 8y ago
  Example: A high application fee is a barrier. Lowering it does not lower the bar.
  - johnisgood 8y ago
    Definition: > To lower the standards of quality that are expected of or required for something "or required for something". I think it pretty much fits according to the definition, but it is usually used in terms of abilities or skills. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lowering+the+bar https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lowering+the+bar
    - Jtsummers 8y ago
      You’re not parsing that correctly. To lower the standards of quality that are expected of something. Or To lower the standards of quality that are required for something. Lowering the bar is a reduction of quality. Lowering barriers is not the same thing.
      - johnisgood 8y ago
        By reducing the barrier to entry by, say, making the tests easier (or the use of build systems), then effectively you are reducing the quality of "applicants". Eliminate the barrier completely (get rid of the tests), and it is guaranteed that you will get many more applicants who would not be fit for whatever. Doesn't this make sense?
        Jtsummers 8y ago
        This depends on what the barrier is. A financial barrier, for instance, to submit apps to an App Store does not introduce any quality test. So removing it doesn't reduce quality. If removing a barrier means removing a quality check, then sure it could lower the bar. But not all barriers are quality checks. Show that cargo removes a quality check, and you can come back and claim it's lowering the bar.
        johnisgood 8y ago
        > This depends on what the barrier is. I know, but we are talking about this specific barrier. It is not a financial barrier that has been lowered either. Regarding this barrier: I already explained how it could be the case, by of course potentially losing skilled people, and as I said it is not without downsides. We could argue as much as we want, that doesn't really explain how it is inherently a good thing. In reality you get more lazy contributions and packages, take a look at package managers such as npm.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- RobertKerans 8y ago
  Bars are lowered, barriers are removed; lowering barriers is a mixed metaphor that doesn't really work because "lowering a barrier" often, in reality, means that a barrier has been put in place. Plus the metaphor has to mean the same thing in this case — there is a barrier to entry, but it is not as difficult to get past as it was previously, which exactly the same as lowering the bar (the bar is still there, it's just lower and therefore easier to jump over)
  - johnisgood 8y ago
    Easier to jump over, which means that people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to pass, now can easily jump over. It reduces quality, doesn't it? What I meant was that due to eliminated barriers, you may get lower quality. I emphasize may here. Just in case.
    - geofft 8y ago
      Only if a) the bar(rier) is correlated with quality and b) there are no other quality gates elsewhere in the process.
      - johnisgood 8y ago
        So does anyone know if in this exact situation it is, or it is not, or are we all just assuming that it's necessary a good thing and bash on anyone who dares to bring it up that it may not be the case? I said "arguably", and yes, while I did not provide an argument, I thought someone else could.
        geofft 8y ago
        Arguably, Nick Cameron is an agent of the Knights Templar and Cargo is a secret plan towards world domination. You need to say why you think things are plausible. (In this exact situation I do know that there's a quality gate later in the process, and it would be very easy for you to determine that too with at most five minutes of research.)

Is it? I have seen them used in the exact same way. For example: lowering barriers to entry to a university is lowering the bar. Are they not the same thing?

finnh 8y ago
Example: A high application fee is a barrier. Lowering it does not lower the bar.
- johnisgood 8y ago
  Definition: > To lower the standards of quality that are expected of or required for something "or required for something". I think it pretty much fits according to the definition, but it is usually used in terms of abilities or skills. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lowering+the+bar https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/lowering+the+bar
  - Jtsummers 8y ago
    You’re not parsing that correctly. To lower the standards of quality that are expected of something. Or To lower the standards of quality that are required for something. Lowering the bar is a reduction of quality. Lowering barriers is not the same thing.
    - johnisgood 8y ago
      By reducing the barrier to entry by, say, making the tests easier (or the use of build systems), then effectively you are reducing the quality of "applicants". Eliminate the barrier completely (get rid of the tests), and it is guaranteed that you will get many more applicants who would not be fit for whatever. Doesn't this make sense?
      - Jtsummers 8y ago
        This depends on what the barrier is. A financial barrier, for instance, to submit apps to an App Store does not introduce any quality test. So removing it doesn't reduce quality. If removing a barrier means removing a quality check, then sure it could lower the bar. But not all barriers are quality checks. Show that cargo removes a quality check, and you can come back and claim it's lowering the bar.
        johnisgood 8y ago
        > This depends on what the barrier is. I know, but we are talking about this specific barrier. It is not a financial barrier that has been lowered either. Regarding this barrier: I already explained how it could be the case, by of course potentially losing skilled people, and as I said it is not without downsides. We could argue as much as we want, that doesn't really explain how it is inherently a good thing. In reality you get more lazy contributions and packages, take a look at package managers such as npm.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
RobertKerans 8y ago
Bars are lowered, barriers are removed; lowering barriers is a mixed metaphor that doesn't really work because "lowering a barrier" often, in reality, means that a barrier has been put in place. Plus the metaphor has to mean the same thing in this case — there is a barrier to entry, but it is not as difficult to get past as it was previously, which exactly the same as lowering the bar (the bar is still there, it's just lower and therefore easier to jump over)
- johnisgood 8y ago
  Easier to jump over, which means that people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to pass, now can easily jump over. It reduces quality, doesn't it? What I meant was that due to eliminated barriers, you may get lower quality. I emphasize may here. Just in case.
  - geofft 8y ago
    Only if a) the bar(rier) is correlated with quality and b) there are no other quality gates elsewhere in the process.
    - johnisgood 8y ago
      So does anyone know if in this exact situation it is, or it is not, or are we all just assuming that it's necessary a good thing and bash on anyone who dares to bring it up that it may not be the case? I said "arguably", and yes, while I did not provide an argument, I thought someone else could.
      - geofft 8y ago
        Arguably, Nick Cameron is an agent of the Knights Templar and Cargo is a secret plan towards world domination. You need to say why you think things are plausible. (In this exact situation I do know that there's a quality gate later in the process, and it would be very easy for you to determine that too with at most five minutes of research.)