5 ms·

They are guidelines, and my comment isn't based on them, but on the usefulness of the title. It might be »shorter and concise,« but I'd also argue that you are

by phaylon 15y ago

They are guidelines, and my comment isn't based on them, but on the usefulness of the title. It might be »shorter and concise,« but I'd also argue that you are trying to convey emotional meaning that is not in the original content. Plus, the »please« was added by you to »make me happy« after my first criticism. I'm not sure how it's redundant, since it changes the meaning of the title. But it did not really touch on my point. You are addressing Google in the title, while you're probably trying to get HN users to participate. From the title, I would have expected a personal take on the issue at hand, not just a ticket. I would also argue that »Please listen, Google: we want a Google Scholar API« is less concise than »3 years old Google Issue asking for an API for Scholar« as the latter contains more information. It explains that the issue has been there for 3 years, and what the resource contains that you're pointing to. If you think my points are invalid, why do you think so? Do you deem my criticism invalid just because it isn't an excerpt of guidelines?

ignifero 15y ago
I really see no point to conversing in an abandoned thread like this, but i 'm outlining it here: 1) My message would be "HN, if you care, help make more visible this request for a Google Scholar API by visiting this petition that has been submitted on google issues to add Google Scholar to the API, along with BibTex and 100+ other features that are requested in the comments for the issue. I 'm very unhappy that it hasn't been implemented in 3 years, and it's not just me, it seems other people are working on research web apps, too.". 2) How is "3 years old Google issue" of interest to anyone? It's trivial metadata (and implicit in the URL) 3) Please don't misunderstand my "are you happy now" comment. It was well-intented 4) If I used your wording, people wouldn't know whether i was pointing to an open, closed, fixed, invalid or other bug. Also there would be no indication that i actually would like them to upvote the petition. 5) I believe, "We want a Google Scholar API" is the shortest way to describe the request. "Listen, Google" is meant to be a motivator 6) This must be my most-scrutinized title. And I m not even English.
- phaylon 15y ago
  Thanks for the answers, that clears things up for me. I'm not a native English speaker myself and can relate to that. That might even be one of the reasons the semantics in the title stood out for me as much as they did.

by phaylon 15y ago

ignifero 15y ago

I really see no point to conversing in an abandoned thread like this, but i 'm outlining it here: 1) My message would be "HN, if you care, help make more visible this request for a Google Scholar API by visiting this petition that has been submitted on google issues to add Google Scholar to the API, along with BibTex and 100+ other features that are requested in the comments for the issue. I 'm very unhappy that it hasn't been implemented in 3 years, and it's not just me, it seems other people are working on research web apps, too.". 2) How is "3 years old Google issue" of interest to anyone? It's trivial metadata (and implicit in the URL) 3) Please don't misunderstand my "are you happy now" comment. It was well-intented 4) If I used your wording, people wouldn't know whether i was pointing to an open, closed, fixed, invalid or other bug. Also there would be no indication that i actually would like them to upvote the petition. 5) I believe, "We want a Google Scholar API" is the shortest way to describe the request. "Listen, Google" is meant to be a motivator 6) This must be my most-scrutinized title. And I m not even English.

phaylon 15y ago
Thanks for the answers, that clears things up for me. I'm not a native English speaker myself and can relate to that. That might even be one of the reasons the semantics in the title stood out for me as much as they did.