4 ms·

None. I don't care what people say or how they say it because we're all different. However, since it just came to mind, on StackOverflow.com, I despise when s

by dpcan 16y ago

None. I don't care what people say or how they say it because we're all different. However, since it just came to mind, on StackOverflow.com, I despise when someone pops in and says "read the documentation" then provides a link. As if I hadn't already read it a thousand times and ended up at Stack because I was stuck. Whoa. Way off topic.

xenophanes 16y ago
One logical fallacy I don't like is the Sunk Cost fallacy. It says that because I already read half a book, I should read the rest too, even though I don't want to, b/c that will somehow make reading the first have less of a waste. It's like throwing good money after bad. Another example is when you write a draft comment, that is a sunk cost. When you recognize that comment is off topic and shouldn't be posted, you cannot recoup your sunk cost by posting it anyway. That just makes things worse.
rhizome 16y ago
You'll have 150% better luck avoiding those comments if you phrase your question in terms of your understanding (or not, as the case may be) of the documentation that you (apparently obviously) already read. People don't know your unmentioned history.
Travis 16y ago
This may be a little off topic, but downvoting w/o a comment seems rude. Let me help you balance that a little. In response to your SO complaint: I will sometimes reply with a request to read the documentation (including a link to the relevant section), but only when it's very clear that the OP has not read the docs. It's especially prevalent for me, b/c I tend to stick to the PHP/lowest common denominator languages.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  > downvoting w/o a comment seems rude Happens ALL the time. I generally prefer to leave comments rather than downvote too. But most people don't like to write anything. If explanatory comments were supposed to be used, there wouldn't even be downvotes at all. PS I did not downvote him even though I left a negative comment.
- raganwald 16y ago
  My policy is to down vote or comment, but not both. If it's worth a reply, why would I down vote it? If it doesn't contribute to the discussion, why would I reply?
  - Travis 16y ago
    Because by replying, you can point out flaws or disagreements in the parent post. That helps the person who wrote it get a little better. Additionally, downvoting w/o a comment feel punitive, as opposed to corrective. It also seems a little lazy -- "I'll click the downvote arrow, but won't take any time to help them improve."
    - raganwald 16y ago
      If I believe there's a good reason to help them improve, then I can do so and there's no need to also down vote, as my feelings will be on display for everyone to read. Also, most posts with flaws do contribute to the discussion, I just disagree with the reasoning. That's not the right place for a down vote. IMO. A down vote might be used for a situation where someone else has already explained why the comment is not helpful, or perhaps something beyond redemption like "Pwned, LOL" :-)
  - JonnieCache 16y ago
    >If it's worth a reply, why would I down vote it? If it doesn't contribute to the discussion, why would I reply? This is very insightful, and I will be keeping this notion at the front of my mind when posting. Although I think this mirrors my natural behaviour to an extent anyway. Thinking about it, this is probably part of the HN karma/ranking "secret sauce" anyway. If not, it should be.
- mixmax 16y ago
  It depends. Sometimes I see comments that I don't understand are downvoted - I upvote these and sometimes comment. But most downvoted comments are downvoted for an obvious reason: they're snarky, personal, ad-hominen attacks, trolls or just plain wrong. It wouldn't add anything to the discussion to comment. Here's an example of a snarky comment which deservedly got downvoted for obvius reasons: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2038245 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2038245 (it's mine - and I apologise...)
- teilo 16y ago
  Totally disagree. I regularly down-vote ad hominem, jack assery, and anybody complaining about down-voting. I will never comment because I refuse to lower myself to their level.
chc 16y ago
You have to understand, there's a vast flood of people at Stack Overflow who haven't read the documentation, or at least not with any care. Every time I see a post asking, "Why is my code leaking when I write `self.foo = [[Thing alloc] init]`?" I know that person has not taken the time to read the Cocoa memory management guide. Reading that guide will benefit those people a lot more than me just answering their one question while they remain ignorant of the topic as a whole. So if someone links you to some docs, their brain probably just incorrectly pattern-matched you as that very common kind of poster.
jamesbritt 16y ago
"Whoa. Way off topic." Maybe not. It's not uncommon here for people, when they encountering a post they disagree with, to offer their interpretation, tossing in "Read the [article|post|blog|whatever]" as their, um, argument. Sometimes (maybe mostly) this is done as a deliberately smug insult. But other times it seems the poster really believes that there is but one plausible interpretation of something, and that the only way someone could not have the same interpretation would be to have not read to item in question. Either way it fails to improve the discussion because typically it dismissively ignores any accompanying argument.

by dpcan 16y ago

xenophanes 16y ago

One logical fallacy I don't like is the Sunk Cost fallacy. It says that because I already read half a book, I should read the rest too, even though I don't want to, b/c that will somehow make reading the first have less of a waste. It's like throwing good money after bad. Another example is when you write a draft comment, that is a sunk cost. When you recognize that comment is off topic and shouldn't be posted, you cannot recoup your sunk cost by posting it anyway. That just makes things worse.

rhizome 16y ago

You'll have 150% better luck avoiding those comments if you phrase your question in terms of your understanding (or not, as the case may be) of the documentation that you (apparently obviously) already read. People don't know your unmentioned history.

Travis 16y ago

This may be a little off topic, but downvoting w/o a comment seems rude. Let me help you balance that a little. In response to your SO complaint: I will sometimes reply with a request to read the documentation (including a link to the relevant section), but only when it's very clear that the OP has not read the docs. It's especially prevalent for me, b/c I tend to stick to the PHP/lowest common denominator languages.

xenophanes 16y ago
> downvoting w/o a comment seems rude Happens ALL the time. I generally prefer to leave comments rather than downvote too. But most people don't like to write anything. If explanatory comments were supposed to be used, there wouldn't even be downvotes at all. PS I did not downvote him even though I left a negative comment.
raganwald 16y ago
My policy is to down vote or comment, but not both. If it's worth a reply, why would I down vote it? If it doesn't contribute to the discussion, why would I reply?
- Travis 16y ago
  Because by replying, you can point out flaws or disagreements in the parent post. That helps the person who wrote it get a little better. Additionally, downvoting w/o a comment feel punitive, as opposed to corrective. It also seems a little lazy -- "I'll click the downvote arrow, but won't take any time to help them improve."
  - raganwald 16y ago
    If I believe there's a good reason to help them improve, then I can do so and there's no need to also down vote, as my feelings will be on display for everyone to read. Also, most posts with flaws do contribute to the discussion, I just disagree with the reasoning. That's not the right place for a down vote. IMO. A down vote might be used for a situation where someone else has already explained why the comment is not helpful, or perhaps something beyond redemption like "Pwned, LOL" :-)
- JonnieCache 16y ago
  >If it's worth a reply, why would I down vote it? If it doesn't contribute to the discussion, why would I reply? This is very insightful, and I will be keeping this notion at the front of my mind when posting. Although I think this mirrors my natural behaviour to an extent anyway. Thinking about it, this is probably part of the HN karma/ranking "secret sauce" anyway. If not, it should be.
mixmax 16y ago
It depends. Sometimes I see comments that I don't understand are downvoted - I upvote these and sometimes comment. But most downvoted comments are downvoted for an obvious reason: they're snarky, personal, ad-hominen attacks, trolls or just plain wrong. It wouldn't add anything to the discussion to comment. Here's an example of a snarky comment which deservedly got downvoted for obvius reasons: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2038245 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2038245 (it's mine - and I apologise...)
teilo 16y ago
Totally disagree. I regularly down-vote ad hominem, jack assery, and anybody complaining about down-voting. I will never comment because I refuse to lower myself to their level.

chc 16y ago

You have to understand, there's a vast flood of people at Stack Overflow who haven't read the documentation, or at least not with any care. Every time I see a post asking, "Why is my code leaking when I write `self.foo = [[Thing alloc] init]`?" I know that person has not taken the time to read the Cocoa memory management guide. Reading that guide will benefit those people a lot more than me just answering their one question while they remain ignorant of the topic as a whole. So if someone links you to some docs, their brain probably just incorrectly pattern-matched you as that very common kind of poster.

jamesbritt 16y ago

"Whoa. Way off topic." Maybe not. It's not uncommon here for people, when they encountering a post they disagree with, to offer their interpretation, tossing in "Read the [article|post|blog|whatever]" as their, um, argument. Sometimes (maybe mostly) this is done as a deliberately smug insult. But other times it seems the poster really believes that there is but one plausible interpretation of something, and that the only way someone could not have the same interpretation would be to have not read to item in question. Either way it fails to improve the discussion because typically it dismissively ignores any accompanying argument.