4 ms·

This article seems to be written assuming that you already know how professional golf reached its breaking point. With no pre-existing knowledge of the subject

This article seems to be written assuming that you already know how professional golf reached its breaking point. With no pre-existing knowledge of the subject all I got from it was that there's apparently some sort of dispute between the PGA Tour and LIV golf (which I've never heard of before) and for whatever reason someone named Phil Mickelson is seen as a centerpiece of this dispute. Apparently LIV is paying the golfers more? It isn't clear to me from reading just this article why that's a problem or what the big deal is.

listenallyall 4y ago
Is this a criticism? Not every article has to be written for the lowest common denominator. The fracturing of professional golf's monopoly and the emergence of a rival tour has been a pretty major sports story for the past few weeks, certainly on ESPN's tv networks and ESPN.com
- nomel 4y ago
  It's a valid criticism for a comment section of HN, which mostly has very little to do with golf. If it's meant for people that already know the situation, then that's fine. But, most people don't already know the situation, so the mass confusion should be expected.
  - listenallyall 4y ago
    > mass confusion Lol, there's one guy complaining. You understand that HN is an aggregator, right? This was an article by an ESPN writer on ESPN.com. His intended audience is sports fans visiting ESPN, not the HN crowd. Or are you suggesting the article should never be posted to HN at all? It got enough votes to be front-paged, so there are enough HN readers who do find it interesting, even if you personally don't.
- kbenson 4y ago
  I suspect it's less a complaint and more a request for someone that knows more to clarify, which often happens in the comments when someone notes they are having a hard time understanding because of missing context. If the first reply was someone explaining the situation, the top level comment would probably have received a bunch of up votes from people that also didn't know instead of down votes from people that now interpreted it as a complaint, because of the context of the initial reply. This is one of the reasons the rules state we're supposed to respond to the best possible interpretation of a comment. Not only is it polite, but it leads to better discussion where we don't devolve into whether a comment was useful, when most comments can be repurposed with replies to become useful regardless of original intent.

listenallyall 4y ago

Is this a criticism? Not every article has to be written for the lowest common denominator. The fracturing of professional golf's monopoly and the emergence of a rival tour has been a pretty major sports story for the past few weeks, certainly on ESPN's tv networks and ESPN.com

nomel 4y ago
It's a valid criticism for a comment section of HN, which mostly has very little to do with golf. If it's meant for people that already know the situation, then that's fine. But, most people don't already know the situation, so the mass confusion should be expected.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  > mass confusion Lol, there's one guy complaining. You understand that HN is an aggregator, right? This was an article by an ESPN writer on ESPN.com. His intended audience is sports fans visiting ESPN, not the HN crowd. Or are you suggesting the article should never be posted to HN at all? It got enough votes to be front-paged, so there are enough HN readers who do find it interesting, even if you personally don't.
kbenson 4y ago
I suspect it's less a complaint and more a request for someone that knows more to clarify, which often happens in the comments when someone notes they are having a hard time understanding because of missing context. If the first reply was someone explaining the situation, the top level comment would probably have received a bunch of up votes from people that also didn't know instead of down votes from people that now interpreted it as a complaint, because of the context of the initial reply. This is one of the reasons the rules state we're supposed to respond to the best possible interpretation of a comment. Not only is it polite, but it leads to better discussion where we don't devolve into whether a comment was useful, when most comments can be repurposed with replies to become useful regardless of original intent.