4 ms·

Thank you for the frank sharing of where you are coming from and clarifying so richly your thinking, it's really valuable to me. It shows me again how we all ar

by ncr100 3y ago

Thank you for the frank sharing of where you are coming from and clarifying so richly your thinking, it's really valuable to me. It shows me again how we all are different and soothes me to a degree, reducing my expectations of myself around strangers. I agree with you, given that context. This article is not an effective brief nugget on emotional introspection for videogame writers. I see it intended to be something different in style. And the fact that I choose to see it differently is the fascinating part to me, than this whole thread here on hacker news. It's like everyone else on this thread is upset and throwing their systematized note cards up in the air due to the article being unoptimized for Google's search engine. It's frankly odd to me, this mob of judgment jumping down the throat of the author.

LegibleCrimson 3y ago
> throwing their systematized note cards up in the air due to the article being unoptimized for Google's search engine In my opinion, it's more criticism of the article for not communicating clearly to the reader. I don't care about Google SEO, but I do care about being able to understand the purpose of what I'm reading. > this mob of judgment jumping down the throat of the author. I do take issue with this. We are not our work. If we create something that has flaws, it should not be rude or uncouth to address those, nor should it be considered a personal attack on the author. Otherwise, why wouldn't the same apply to the critique itself? Wouldn't it be similarly wrong to jump down the throat of somebody who criticizes the work, as much of this thread boils down to? Writing is not sacred, and we are not what we write. If we take critique personally, then we are setting ourselves up for defensiveness and an inability to grow or develop. That said, it's clear that many people like the presentation. The fact that this article isn't for everybody is not a bad thing. Not everything needs to be for everybody, and somebody who points out why it doesn't work for them can be right, while at the same time, those aspects aren't a problem for other readers.
jvanderbot 3y ago
I am not sure SEO is a strong influence here. Maybe, but I credit the influence from Strunk and White. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103147654 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103147... 16. Be clear. and When you say something, make sure you have said it. The chances of your having said it are only fair. What is being said here? And was it said? And was it said with 100 words when 10 would do? Were the other 90 words evidence or engaging content or ... a garden of thoughts?

by ncr100 3y ago

LegibleCrimson 3y ago

> throwing their systematized note cards up in the air due to the article being unoptimized for Google's search engine In my opinion, it's more criticism of the article for not communicating clearly to the reader. I don't care about Google SEO, but I do care about being able to understand the purpose of what I'm reading. > this mob of judgment jumping down the throat of the author. I do take issue with this. We are not our work. If we create something that has flaws, it should not be rude or uncouth to address those, nor should it be considered a personal attack on the author. Otherwise, why wouldn't the same apply to the critique itself? Wouldn't it be similarly wrong to jump down the throat of somebody who criticizes the work, as much of this thread boils down to? Writing is not sacred, and we are not what we write. If we take critique personally, then we are setting ourselves up for defensiveness and an inability to grow or develop. That said, it's clear that many people like the presentation. The fact that this article isn't for everybody is not a bad thing. Not everything needs to be for everybody, and somebody who points out why it doesn't work for them can be right, while at the same time, those aspects aren't a problem for other readers.

jvanderbot 3y ago

I am not sure SEO is a strong influence here. Maybe, but I credit the influence from Strunk and White. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103147654 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103147... 16. Be clear. and When you say something, make sure you have said it. The chances of your having said it are only fair. What is being said here? And was it said? And was it said with 100 words when 10 would do? Were the other 90 words evidence or engaging content or ... a garden of thoughts?