5 ms·

A) The HN guidelines [0] specifically request discussions not be about tangential annoyances (like the format of the content) rather than the submission itself.

by jsnell 4y ago

A) The HN guidelines [0] specifically request discussions not be about tangential annoyances (like the format of the content) rather than the submission itself. Now this potentially interesting discussion has been hijacked by the top thread, and most replies, being to yet another boring rehash of "why isn't this a blog post". B) In this specific case, the author has written a lot of blog posts about this domain (though not this specific subject), and those have been on HN frontpage occasionally. So whatever reason they had to use Mastodon for this writing, it at least wasn't coming from ignorance or a lack of a platform. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

pvg 4y ago
Another good way to promote that guideline is to flag the bejesus out of such comments. It really needs a bit of a cultural push to stick, sort of like plainly rude yelly comments get swiftly flagged.
barbariangrunge 4y ago
A) I'm a writer. The way something is written is a really important part of the meaning of a piece of writing. Style and formatting is meaningful and important, and isn't just window dressing. It is sometimes more important than the "content" of the message. In my opinion at least.
- pvg 4y ago
  It's a perfectly fine opinion, it's just that whether we need further repetition of this opinion is a settled matter on HN.
aussiesnack 4y ago
Arguable, but I don't think it's a slam dunk that replacing the multimillenial standard interface for connected text (ie. text!) with an entirely novel chain of multiple artificially separated UI widgets is either tangential or just to do with 'format'. Personally I won't read them, so at a minimum these links when unidentified merely waste my time, and presumably that of other irritated commenters here. Maybe they should be identified. My personal preference would be a large red banner with a phrase like ("Warning: this is not a real piece"). But a small less tendentious icon would also be fine!
- pvg 4y ago
  Arguable, but I don't think it's a slam dunk The guideline is not that the form is not annoying - some people, like you, will find it annoying not matter what. It's that the complaints about it are boring, repetitive and corrosive to the forum just as any boring and repetitive thing is. That's very much a slam dunk of truth. multimillenial standard interface for connected text This is pretty ahistorical.
  - aussiesnack 4y ago
    > The guideline is not that the form is not annoying - some people, like you, will find it annoying I'm not arguing that the guideline can be breached when some people find it annoying. That would be silly. I'm arguing that posting articles as trains of social media posts may not be tangential nor merely a matter of formatting. If that's the case (I agree it's 'arguable'), then complaining about them isn't in breach of the guidelines. > This is pretty ahistorical. Claiming that posting multiple social media objects is a mere 'formatting' alteration to our legacy of textual culture is pretty ahistorical.
    - pvg 4y ago
      complaining about them isn't in breach of the guidelines. It is, the guideline was written specifically to address the repetitive twitter complaints - you can find this explanation in the mod commentary. Also, pretty much anything repetitive runs counter to the rubric of the forum and this complaint is very, very repetitive. our legacy of textual culture Our 'legacy of textual culture' contains a huge variety of formats and representations. The notion that some single one is a representative standard, let alone has lasted for millennia is not an accurate one.
      - aussiesnack 4y ago
        > you can find this explanation in the mod commentary. If the guidelines are unclear, and arbitrarily rule non-articles in as articles, then they must be rewritten to make the fiat clear. > Our 'legacy of textual culture' contains a huge variety of formats and representations. The notion that some single one is a representative standard, let alone has lasted for millennia is not an accurate one. Irrelevant, as no-one made that claim. Your unevidenced insistence on your personal take on a novel tech as inarguably part of a historical tradition is just quiet shouting. I disagree, but agree it's arguable. You think it's not arguable, because it's obvious to you, and you believe what's obvious to you should be enforced.

by jsnell 4y ago

pvg 4y ago

Another good way to promote that guideline is to flag the bejesus out of such comments. It really needs a bit of a cultural push to stick, sort of like plainly rude yelly comments get swiftly flagged.

barbariangrunge 4y ago

A) I'm a writer. The way something is written is a really important part of the meaning of a piece of writing. Style and formatting is meaningful and important, and isn't just window dressing. It is sometimes more important than the "content" of the message. In my opinion at least.

pvg 4y ago
It's a perfectly fine opinion, it's just that whether we need further repetition of this opinion is a settled matter on HN.

aussiesnack 4y ago

Arguable, but I don't think it's a slam dunk that replacing the multimillenial standard interface for connected text (ie. text!) with an entirely novel chain of multiple artificially separated UI widgets is either tangential or just to do with 'format'. Personally I won't read them, so at a minimum these links when unidentified merely waste my time, and presumably that of other irritated commenters here. Maybe they should be identified. My personal preference would be a large red banner with a phrase like ("Warning: this is not a real piece"). But a small less tendentious icon would also be fine!

pvg 4y ago
Arguable, but I don't think it's a slam dunk The guideline is not that the form is not annoying - some people, like you, will find it annoying not matter what. It's that the complaints about it are boring, repetitive and corrosive to the forum just as any boring and repetitive thing is. That's very much a slam dunk of truth. multimillenial standard interface for connected text This is pretty ahistorical.
- aussiesnack 4y ago
  > The guideline is not that the form is not annoying - some people, like you, will find it annoying I'm not arguing that the guideline can be breached when some people find it annoying. That would be silly. I'm arguing that posting articles as trains of social media posts may not be tangential nor merely a matter of formatting. If that's the case (I agree it's 'arguable'), then complaining about them isn't in breach of the guidelines. > This is pretty ahistorical. Claiming that posting multiple social media objects is a mere 'formatting' alteration to our legacy of textual culture is pretty ahistorical.
  - pvg 4y ago
    complaining about them isn't in breach of the guidelines. It is, the guideline was written specifically to address the repetitive twitter complaints - you can find this explanation in the mod commentary. Also, pretty much anything repetitive runs counter to the rubric of the forum and this complaint is very, very repetitive. our legacy of textual culture Our 'legacy of textual culture' contains a huge variety of formats and representations. The notion that some single one is a representative standard, let alone has lasted for millennia is not an accurate one.
    - aussiesnack 4y ago
      > you can find this explanation in the mod commentary. If the guidelines are unclear, and arbitrarily rule non-articles in as articles, then they must be rewritten to make the fiat clear. > Our 'legacy of textual culture' contains a huge variety of formats and representations. The notion that some single one is a representative standard, let alone has lasted for millennia is not an accurate one. Irrelevant, as no-one made that claim. Your unevidenced insistence on your personal take on a novel tech as inarguably part of a historical tradition is just quiet shouting. I disagree, but agree it's arguable. You think it's not arguable, because it's obvious to you, and you believe what's obvious to you should be enforced.