4 ms·

"...I eeked out my $40,000 a month..." OH NOOOOOOOOO (I write insightful comments so that I may also write cathartic ones like this. Vote however you like.)

"...I eeked out my $40,000 a month..." OH NOOOOOOOOO (I write insightful comments so that I may also write cathartic ones like this. Vote however you like.) Edit: This comment was ill-conceived in every way possible.

seiji 16y ago
There is indeed a balance. If one of my two word comments results in 50 upvotes, I feel the need to balance it out with some trite anti-HN-hero comment that'll restore order. The Internet: You aren't interacting with people. You're interacting with a model of the average personality on sites you frequent. People end up falling into manipulation bundles. "If I do X, bucket P will do Z. If I do K, bucket M will do A, ..." Want to try it out? "DHH sucks!" -> bucket A: "Yeah, he kinda does." bucket B: "NO! He's our HERO!" bucket C: "Well, he's good at what he does, but he panders." bucket D: "What? It's nice outside. I wasn't paying attention."
- stevejohnson 16y ago
  Here's some more twisted internet reasoning for you: maybe if all of the comments on this article suck as much as the article itself does, it will fall off the front page like it deserves to. It's a meaningless story about a guy who, by his own admission, has written several books just for the attention. Then he meets, dates, and marries a girl in the space of a single paragraph, which somehow justifies the entire experience. Now here I am, reading it on Hacker News, just wishing it would go away. We can debate internet philosophy (interacting with a System vs a Community) all day, but I'll just go ahead and concede the entire battle to you right now, because you're right, it was a bad comment made for unsound reasons. However, I am not a rational agent and will not delete it.
  - jaltucher 16y ago
    funny, for a guy who hates it you sure spent a lot of time on it.
    - stevejohnson 16y ago
      Others have said the same about Richard Dawkins, a man whose company I would be proud to be in. That's not to say that I think I come anywhere near him in terms of contributing to the discussion. This is the first time in a while I have seen an article I disliked so much get up so high on the front page, so I feel obligated to explain my position to others so that they will think more carefully about what they vote up.
    - jaltucher 16y ago
      A) not sure what dawkins has to do with anything. B) i thought there's value in providing advances / sales numbers, etc. As a writer I can say there's nothing like that out there. It helps to understand the reality of the publishing business.
      - il 16y ago
        I think the numbers are the best part of the article, refreshingly candid. When a startup posts its revenue/traffic numbers it is lauded for honesty. The same should apply to this post. It seems that books are like startups- unless you hit a huge home run, you really shouldn't be doing it for the money.
      - stevejohnson 16y ago
        > A) not sure what dawkins has to do with anything. Simple, he hates religion but spends a lot of time on it.
il 16y ago
I'm probably going to get downvoted for saying this, but putting "vote however you like" or "I expect downvotes for this" or "I know this isn't going to get upvotes" in a comment almost guarantees your comment lots of upvotes. It's almost as if when you say you expect people to downvote you their instinctive reaction is "Don't tell me what to think!" and they do the opposite. EDIT: Apparently implying a parent comment is pandering for karma is an equally rapid way to get it downvoted. Please don't downvote the parent comment because of this one- I actually found it quite witty.
- stevejohnson 16y ago
  This comes up almost every time someone does what I just did. You're right about the Voting-Based Social Media Site Psychology of it, but I think we've covered it enough that it doesn't need to be said. I do regret adding that to the end. I really didn't mean to influence the votes. Now, of course, I can't remove it without eliminating the context for our discussion. Edit for more meta: Apparently I am now That Guy In The Thread Whose Comments Are All Downvoted Regardless of Contribution to the Discussion. I am also That Guy Who Left A Stupid Reddit-Style Comment, That Guy Who Is Spending To Much Time in the Thread, and That Guy Who Thinks Hacker News is Going Downhill. Time for a sandwich.
  - il 16y ago
    I don't mean to come across as criticizing you for that comment in any way! Seriously, I think it's a fine and well placed comment! (Plus HN is always more mellow on Sundays). I'm just incredibly interested in crowd psychology and mass control, and pointing this out as an effective tactic.

seiji 16y ago

There is indeed a balance. If one of my two word comments results in 50 upvotes, I feel the need to balance it out with some trite anti-HN-hero comment that'll restore order. The Internet: You aren't interacting with people. You're interacting with a model of the average personality on sites you frequent. People end up falling into manipulation bundles. "If I do X, bucket P will do Z. If I do K, bucket M will do A, ..." Want to try it out? "DHH sucks!" -> bucket A: "Yeah, he kinda does." bucket B: "NO! He's our HERO!" bucket C: "Well, he's good at what he does, but he panders." bucket D: "What? It's nice outside. I wasn't paying attention."

stevejohnson 16y ago
Here's some more twisted internet reasoning for you: maybe if all of the comments on this article suck as much as the article itself does, it will fall off the front page like it deserves to. It's a meaningless story about a guy who, by his own admission, has written several books just for the attention. Then he meets, dates, and marries a girl in the space of a single paragraph, which somehow justifies the entire experience. Now here I am, reading it on Hacker News, just wishing it would go away. We can debate internet philosophy (interacting with a System vs a Community) all day, but I'll just go ahead and concede the entire battle to you right now, because you're right, it was a bad comment made for unsound reasons. However, I am not a rational agent and will not delete it.
- jaltucher 16y ago
  funny, for a guy who hates it you sure spent a lot of time on it.
  - stevejohnson 16y ago
    Others have said the same about Richard Dawkins, a man whose company I would be proud to be in. That's not to say that I think I come anywhere near him in terms of contributing to the discussion. This is the first time in a while I have seen an article I disliked so much get up so high on the front page, so I feel obligated to explain my position to others so that they will think more carefully about what they vote up.
  - jaltucher 16y ago
    A) not sure what dawkins has to do with anything. B) i thought there's value in providing advances / sales numbers, etc. As a writer I can say there's nothing like that out there. It helps to understand the reality of the publishing business.
    - il 16y ago
      I think the numbers are the best part of the article, refreshingly candid. When a startup posts its revenue/traffic numbers it is lauded for honesty. The same should apply to this post. It seems that books are like startups- unless you hit a huge home run, you really shouldn't be doing it for the money.
    - stevejohnson 16y ago
      > A) not sure what dawkins has to do with anything. Simple, he hates religion but spends a lot of time on it.

il 16y ago

I'm probably going to get downvoted for saying this, but putting "vote however you like" or "I expect downvotes for this" or "I know this isn't going to get upvotes" in a comment almost guarantees your comment lots of upvotes. It's almost as if when you say you expect people to downvote you their instinctive reaction is "Don't tell me what to think!" and they do the opposite. EDIT: Apparently implying a parent comment is pandering for karma is an equally rapid way to get it downvoted. Please don't downvote the parent comment because of this one- I actually found it quite witty.

stevejohnson 16y ago
This comes up almost every time someone does what I just did. You're right about the Voting-Based Social Media Site Psychology of it, but I think we've covered it enough that it doesn't need to be said. I do regret adding that to the end. I really didn't mean to influence the votes. Now, of course, I can't remove it without eliminating the context for our discussion. Edit for more meta: Apparently I am now That Guy In The Thread Whose Comments Are All Downvoted Regardless of Contribution to the Discussion. I am also That Guy Who Left A Stupid Reddit-Style Comment, That Guy Who Is Spending To Much Time in the Thread, and That Guy Who Thinks Hacker News is Going Downhill. Time for a sandwich.
- il 16y ago
  I don't mean to come across as criticizing you for that comment in any way! Seriously, I think it's a fine and well placed comment! (Plus HN is always more mellow on Sundays). I'm just incredibly interested in crowd psychology and mass control, and pointing this out as an effective tactic.