3 ms·

Now there's simply another meta comment at the top. When you mark that one off-topic, an irrelevant anecdote about elk that suggests possibly-not-reading-the-ar

Now there's simply another meta comment at the top. When you mark that one off-topic, an irrelevant anecdote about elk that suggests possibly-not-reading-the-article will be on top.

dang 7y ago
That comment does start out with a meta criticism, but then it turns into a much better comment by saying something fun and interesting about the article, which gratifies curiosity in its own right. The one about elk isn't irrelevant: it describes a comparable situation. Better still, it's based in personal experience. Anecdotes are fine—they're the life-blood of good conversation, and HN threads are supposed to be good conversations [1]. We're not doing peer-reviewed replication here. That's perhaps the real problem with the comments you've been posting in this thread: they're bad for conversation because they're bilious. Bile is a bummer. 1. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20conversation%20anecdote&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
- jcahill 7y ago
  I was about to follow up my meta comment with a regular comment about river basin mapping and bird migration viz until your reply about the off-topic flag. Defense of curiosity for its own sake is a preface for conversation. Noting disappointment in people being miserable about something interesting, which in itself totally disinvites on-topic conversation, isn't bile. I can't ask people to read the article per the site rules, even though it's painfully apparent that half the problem is lack of nudging to read the article. So of course dissent is going to be colder than it could otherwise be.
  - dang 7y ago
    > a regular comment about river basin mapping and bird migration viz That sounds great! That's the way to combat bad comments, by posting better ones. I'm sorry if I put you out of the mood for that. Please reconsider?

Now there's simply another meta comment at the top. When you mark that one off-topic, an irrelevant anecdote about elk that suggests possibly-not-reading-the-article will be on top.

dang 7y ago

That comment does start out with a meta criticism, but then it turns into a much better comment by saying something fun and interesting about the article, which gratifies curiosity in its own right. The one about elk isn't irrelevant: it describes a comparable situation. Better still, it's based in personal experience. Anecdotes are fine—they're the life-blood of good conversation, and HN threads are supposed to be good conversations [1]. We're not doing peer-reviewed replication here. That's perhaps the real problem with the comments you've been posting in this thread: they're bad for conversation because they're bilious. Bile is a bummer. 1. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20conversation%20anecdote&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

jcahill 7y ago
I was about to follow up my meta comment with a regular comment about river basin mapping and bird migration viz until your reply about the off-topic flag. Defense of curiosity for its own sake is a preface for conversation. Noting disappointment in people being miserable about something interesting, which in itself totally disinvites on-topic conversation, isn't bile. I can't ask people to read the article per the site rules, even though it's painfully apparent that half the problem is lack of nudging to read the article. So of course dissent is going to be colder than it could otherwise be.
- dang 7y ago
  > a regular comment about river basin mapping and bird migration viz That sounds great! That's the way to combat bad comments, by posting better ones. I'm sorry if I put you out of the mood for that. Please reconsider?