5 ms·

And as with so many articles, the reader might ask, what is this thing you are talking about? What is a bar end? I realize a picture of the front of a bike was

by natch 5y ago

And as with so many articles, the reader might ask, what is this thing you are talking about? What is a bar end? I realize a picture of the front of a bike was provided but it looked pretty normal to me, and I see where the bar ends, but that’s not making it any more clear. Gradually through reading between the lines I can get an inkling, but readers deserve a short definition up front, beyond just saying they are an emblematic retro accessory.

crazygringo 5y ago
This has always been a problem with news aggregation, and it drives me nuts just as much. In this case, if you're an avid brainybiker.com reader, it might not any sense to define the term, any more than a JavaScript blog needs to explain what IE is. Or even link to the IE Wikipedia article (or else every other word would turn into a link). On the other hand, when a story gets picked up by a wider audience, people like you and me don't have a clue what the subject of the article even is. I wish there was some kind of solution to it, but I don't see one. (It's not like authors are given some urgent phone alert that their article from an hour ago, or two years ago, is getting picked up and they ought to add a prefacing paragraph for general readers in the next 5 minutes...)
- PostThisTooFast 5y ago
  The solution is to not be lazy and define a term on first use. HN posters love to put obscure abbreviations or proper names in headlines as if everyone is supposed to know what it is. That comes off as douchey and pompous.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  Why do we naturally place this burden on the content creator? Of course they're welcome to optimize or chase more eyeballs however they want, but the idea that the reader has to do some work (or not!) was once accepted but not in the era of limitless access to specialized content.
  - natch 5y ago
    I think you’re overstating the case when you say it’s a burden. All of us google stuff all the time so that’s not a huge burden either. It’s just more efficient for one person to write a quick definition than it is for 10 or 1,000 people to go look something up.
    - arnarbi 5y ago
      The majority of readers might very well find it inefficient if words are wasted on explaining things they are familiar with. It can also turn people off the content. If an article on woodworking (my hobby) explains what a cap iron is, I’m likely to move on because I don’t think I’ll learn anything new there.
      - natch 5y ago
        I addressed this in another comment. Skipping over a known definition is something our eyes and brains do very quickly and easily. It's not going to slow down a reader who already knows. As far as turning off some readers, on the one hand, that's natural and unavoidable, if the reader detects the article isn't of interest. There's no obligation that all articles should be interesting to all readers. But defining the basic topic is table stakes. And on the other hand, the case here is slightly different from what you describe, as well. It's an article about why something went away. So even if it started with saying what that thing is, the main content might still be interesting to someone who already knew what that thing was.
- jessriedel 5y ago
  Exactly. It isn't the fault of super niche blog for not giving an elementary intro to the subject. Indeed, that would be infuriating for experts to read every time. Insofar as this missing context for social-media-linked novices is a problem, it's one that needs to be solved on the social media side.
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    That would actually be really cool, especially for HN. Imagine if HN submissions allowed an optional field with a link or short description for "additional context" that the submitter could fill in. I mean, I can't count the number of times there's been a post on the front page that's just a link to a newly released version of something many readers have never heard of, and half the commenters are like "I've been waiting for this for so long, congrats!" and while the top-voted comment is "what is this exactly? Can someone explain?"
    - techbio 5y ago
      I actually like this idea, but discovered early on that functionality did not exist, I wondered why but assumed it was for a good reason and forgot about it. An alternative I often see is an "author here" or "OP, I posted this because..." comment that sometimes is but as often is not the top item.
- WJW 5y ago
  > I wish there was some kind of solution to it, but I don't see one. Have you tried googling the terms you don't know?
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't. Quite often terms are made of common words and Google returns more common contexts. If something is a niche usage, it can be quite challenging to find other terms to add to the search to try to narrow in on the right domain. Other times it's easy to find the term but that still doesn't give you the "debate" or "significance". E.g. whenever a programmer says the words "except Internet Explorer" we all know exactly what that means. But a non-programmer isn't going to have an easy time figuring that out with Google.
- natch 5y ago
  I think your comment is thoughtful but I want to say, the item in question is the topic of the entire article. I do see a solution, the tried and true art of defining what is being talked about. Some jargon mentioned in passing? Probably no, in many cases, because the tradeoff of defining ALL terms would be stifling. But the actual topic? Worth it.
- benatkin 5y ago
  It isn't a problem. If you're interested in the article because you know about the subject, there's no need to for you to waste time reading it. If you don't know about the subject but you're curious about the article anyway, you can search for it. I think it's a reasonable assumption for an article writer that is a quick Duck Duck Go away for someone who isn't the primary audience of the article. It's too bad for someone who is using Read Later, but I'll point to this: https://signalvnoise.com/posts/347-youre-not-on-a-fucking-plane-and-if-you-are-it-doesnt-matter https://signalvnoise.com/posts/347-youre-not-on-a-fucking-pl...
skeeter2020 5y ago
Maybe if they are writing for Reader's Digest or some other generic media, but anyone talking about the details of bar ends is writing for a specific audience; they are far better to focus on their core demo and alienate the masses than try and get everyone up to speed. Readers don't deserve special treatment, it's completely at the discretion of the author. And a quick image search for "bar ends" literally gives you hundreds of pictures of exaclty what they are talking about.
- natch 5y ago
  That’s the standard (and sadly mistaken imho) answer for this everywhere. It’s a kind of gatekeeping reaction (the article is not meant for you) that doesn’t acknowledge that people today read far and wide. The Google thing is a fair point, but having a text definition inline is literally hundreds of times faster, and zero touch, and friendly for screen readers, and doesn’t slow in-the-know readers down a bit because our eyes and brains are so good at flitting past that stuff.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    This isn't gatekeeping; it's simply acknowledging that an article written for a certain audience may assume a certain level of background knowledge. People who are interested and want to learn more are free to look up any words and concepts they don't know. Nobody's going to shame them for doing that. It's simply not realistic to expect every author to anticipate and try to fill every possible reader's intellectual lacunae. I mean, imagine if that other article on the front page today, "Writing Pythonic Rust," had to explain what Pythonic means, and what Rust is, what an API and a wrapper is, what type foundries and font proofs are, and oh my goodness that's just the technical jargon I wouldn't expect a general audience to understand from the first 4 sentences.
    - natch 5y ago
      I agree with most of what you said. However, I also think you've done a good job in showcasing some extreme examples of how my suggestion could be taken too far. Such an extreme take would be undesirable. But it could be done with moderation, as appropriate, such as when an entire article is about why a thing has gone away (and, since it has gone away, almost by definition there will be interested readers who do not know what it is). There are always tradeoffs to be made in good writing.
rconti 5y ago
I think the issue is the stylized photo; it would be more obviously a bolt-on addition if the photo was higher quality. Anyway, sort of ironic here on HN where every article is about mashing together 27 frameworks that haven't been out for more than 6 months and won't be around in another 18 months
adrianmonk 5y ago
Ideally two photos side by side, one of the old style and the new style.
techbio 5y ago
A definition, or a product photo, even a link to rare backstock bar ends on eBay wouldn't hurt anyone. What would hurt me most would be if, to make it approachable, the first two paragraphs were a short description of breakfast and their disappointing ringtone, a character sketch of the person who just-now-texted which reminded the author that they had asked to borrow a wrench, that the author had to use to repeatedly tighten a left bar-end that would slip after any real use, then dramatically flex their wrist and continue on with the entire essay while still not once defining bar-end.

by natch 5y ago

crazygringo 5y ago

This has always been a problem with news aggregation, and it drives me nuts just as much. In this case, if you're an avid brainybiker.com reader, it might not any sense to define the term, any more than a JavaScript blog needs to explain what IE is. Or even link to the IE Wikipedia article (or else every other word would turn into a link). On the other hand, when a story gets picked up by a wider audience, people like you and me don't have a clue what the subject of the article even is. I wish there was some kind of solution to it, but I don't see one. (It's not like authors are given some urgent phone alert that their article from an hour ago, or two years ago, is getting picked up and they ought to add a prefacing paragraph for general readers in the next 5 minutes...)

PostThisTooFast 5y ago
The solution is to not be lazy and define a term on first use. HN posters love to put obscure abbreviations or proper names in headlines as if everyone is supposed to know what it is. That comes off as douchey and pompous.
skeeter2020 5y ago
Why do we naturally place this burden on the content creator? Of course they're welcome to optimize or chase more eyeballs however they want, but the idea that the reader has to do some work (or not!) was once accepted but not in the era of limitless access to specialized content.
- natch 5y ago
  I think you’re overstating the case when you say it’s a burden. All of us google stuff all the time so that’s not a huge burden either. It’s just more efficient for one person to write a quick definition than it is for 10 or 1,000 people to go look something up.
  - arnarbi 5y ago
    The majority of readers might very well find it inefficient if words are wasted on explaining things they are familiar with. It can also turn people off the content. If an article on woodworking (my hobby) explains what a cap iron is, I’m likely to move on because I don’t think I’ll learn anything new there.
    - natch 5y ago
      I addressed this in another comment. Skipping over a known definition is something our eyes and brains do very quickly and easily. It's not going to slow down a reader who already knows. As far as turning off some readers, on the one hand, that's natural and unavoidable, if the reader detects the article isn't of interest. There's no obligation that all articles should be interesting to all readers. But defining the basic topic is table stakes. And on the other hand, the case here is slightly different from what you describe, as well. It's an article about why something went away. So even if it started with saying what that thing is, the main content might still be interesting to someone who already knew what that thing was.
jessriedel 5y ago
Exactly. It isn't the fault of super niche blog for not giving an elementary intro to the subject. Indeed, that would be infuriating for experts to read every time. Insofar as this missing context for social-media-linked novices is a problem, it's one that needs to be solved on the social media side.
- crazygringo 5y ago
  That would actually be really cool, especially for HN. Imagine if HN submissions allowed an optional field with a link or short description for "additional context" that the submitter could fill in. I mean, I can't count the number of times there's been a post on the front page that's just a link to a newly released version of something many readers have never heard of, and half the commenters are like "I've been waiting for this for so long, congrats!" and while the top-voted comment is "what is this exactly? Can someone explain?"
  - techbio 5y ago
    I actually like this idea, but discovered early on that functionality did not exist, I wondered why but assumed it was for a good reason and forgot about it. An alternative I often see is an "author here" or "OP, I posted this because..." comment that sometimes is but as often is not the top item.
WJW 5y ago
> I wish there was some kind of solution to it, but I don't see one. Have you tried googling the terms you don't know?
- crazygringo 5y ago
  Sometimes it works, but sometimes it doesn't. Quite often terms are made of common words and Google returns more common contexts. If something is a niche usage, it can be quite challenging to find other terms to add to the search to try to narrow in on the right domain. Other times it's easy to find the term but that still doesn't give you the "debate" or "significance". E.g. whenever a programmer says the words "except Internet Explorer" we all know exactly what that means. But a non-programmer isn't going to have an easy time figuring that out with Google.
natch 5y ago
I think your comment is thoughtful but I want to say, the item in question is the topic of the entire article. I do see a solution, the tried and true art of defining what is being talked about. Some jargon mentioned in passing? Probably no, in many cases, because the tradeoff of defining ALL terms would be stifling. But the actual topic? Worth it.
benatkin 5y ago
It isn't a problem. If you're interested in the article because you know about the subject, there's no need to for you to waste time reading it. If you don't know about the subject but you're curious about the article anyway, you can search for it. I think it's a reasonable assumption for an article writer that is a quick Duck Duck Go away for someone who isn't the primary audience of the article. It's too bad for someone who is using Read Later, but I'll point to this: https://signalvnoise.com/posts/347-youre-not-on-a-fucking-plane-and-if-you-are-it-doesnt-matter https://signalvnoise.com/posts/347-youre-not-on-a-fucking-pl...

skeeter2020 5y ago

Maybe if they are writing for Reader's Digest or some other generic media, but anyone talking about the details of bar ends is writing for a specific audience; they are far better to focus on their core demo and alienate the masses than try and get everyone up to speed. Readers don't deserve special treatment, it's completely at the discretion of the author. And a quick image search for "bar ends" literally gives you hundreds of pictures of exaclty what they are talking about.

natch 5y ago
That’s the standard (and sadly mistaken imho) answer for this everywhere. It’s a kind of gatekeeping reaction (the article is not meant for you) that doesn’t acknowledge that people today read far and wide. The Google thing is a fair point, but having a text definition inline is literally hundreds of times faster, and zero touch, and friendly for screen readers, and doesn’t slow in-the-know readers down a bit because our eyes and brains are so good at flitting past that stuff.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  This isn't gatekeeping; it's simply acknowledging that an article written for a certain audience may assume a certain level of background knowledge. People who are interested and want to learn more are free to look up any words and concepts they don't know. Nobody's going to shame them for doing that. It's simply not realistic to expect every author to anticipate and try to fill every possible reader's intellectual lacunae. I mean, imagine if that other article on the front page today, "Writing Pythonic Rust," had to explain what Pythonic means, and what Rust is, what an API and a wrapper is, what type foundries and font proofs are, and oh my goodness that's just the technical jargon I wouldn't expect a general audience to understand from the first 4 sentences.
  - natch 5y ago
    I agree with most of what you said. However, I also think you've done a good job in showcasing some extreme examples of how my suggestion could be taken too far. Such an extreme take would be undesirable. But it could be done with moderation, as appropriate, such as when an entire article is about why a thing has gone away (and, since it has gone away, almost by definition there will be interested readers who do not know what it is). There are always tradeoffs to be made in good writing.

rconti 5y ago

I think the issue is the stylized photo; it would be more obviously a bolt-on addition if the photo was higher quality. Anyway, sort of ironic here on HN where every article is about mashing together 27 frameworks that haven't been out for more than 6 months and won't be around in another 18 months

adrianmonk 5y ago

Ideally two photos side by side, one of the old style and the new style.

techbio 5y ago

A definition, or a product photo, even a link to rare backstock bar ends on eBay wouldn't hurt anyone. What would hurt me most would be if, to make it approachable, the first two paragraphs were a short description of breakfast and their disappointing ringtone, a character sketch of the person who just-now-texted which reminded the author that they had asked to borrow a wrench, that the author had to use to repeatedly tighten a left bar-end that would slip after any real use, then dramatically flex their wrist and continue on with the entire essay while still not once defining bar-end.