3 ms·

all the comments are negative, but the post at this time 64 upvotes - why? i've seen this so often on HN, but i really don't understand it.

simonbarker87 3y ago
Hate the article enough to leave a negative comment, want to see the fall out of it and have it not drop off the front page, so stick an upvote on it as well would be my guess. I have commented on this but haven’t upvoted as it clearly a bonkers article.
jupp0r 3y ago
Because you can't downvote submissions, you can only go in and write a negative comment. Makes complete sense to me to see the effects of that with this article.
- zabzonk 3y ago
  yes, i'm not denying the comments, it's the upvotes that i don't understand.
  - jupp0r 3y ago
    There are probably some people who find the article interesting and well written or who upvote based solely on the headline without reading it.
lolinder 3y ago
Certain topics get a lot of interest (positive and negative) based on the title alone. Event-driven isn't quite peak hype any more, but it still gets a lot of instinctive love from a certain group of people, and a lot of instinctive hate from another. So you get a whole bunch of upvotes (but they don't have anything substantial to say about it), then a whole bunch of negative reactions in the comments based on the title alone. And then in this case, you get a whole bunch of negative reactions from people who tried to read the article and couldn't get past the weird tone.
- RaftPeople 3y ago
  I don't think it's just the tone. At the start of the article, it implies relation and CRUD approaches should and will be replaced by Event Sourcing approach, but he doesn't support that, or even provide a good sense of pros and cons. In one of his comments (comment section) he mentions that the article was supposed to be a "how" not "why", and links to a "why" article, but that "why" article also doesn't do a good job of why with pros and cons. In summary: not a good presentation of the pros and cons which allows a person to clearly identify under what conditions this approach might be a reasonable tool. Additional note: A typical competing model, IME, is a relational model that writes business events at the same time state updates occur.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    It's definitely a bad article. I was more commenting on why there isn't much substantial conversation here, even though there are lots of upvotes. Very few people even bothered to read it because the tone was so bizarre—I couldn't get past it, but it's not surprising to me that the content is low quality too.

simonbarker87 3y ago

Hate the article enough to leave a negative comment, want to see the fall out of it and have it not drop off the front page, so stick an upvote on it as well would be my guess. I have commented on this but haven’t upvoted as it clearly a bonkers article.

jupp0r 3y ago

Because you can't downvote submissions, you can only go in and write a negative comment. Makes complete sense to me to see the effects of that with this article.

zabzonk 3y ago
yes, i'm not denying the comments, it's the upvotes that i don't understand.
- jupp0r 3y ago
  There are probably some people who find the article interesting and well written or who upvote based solely on the headline without reading it.

lolinder 3y ago

Certain topics get a lot of interest (positive and negative) based on the title alone. Event-driven isn't quite peak hype any more, but it still gets a lot of instinctive love from a certain group of people, and a lot of instinctive hate from another. So you get a whole bunch of upvotes (but they don't have anything substantial to say about it), then a whole bunch of negative reactions in the comments based on the title alone. And then in this case, you get a whole bunch of negative reactions from people who tried to read the article and couldn't get past the weird tone.

RaftPeople 3y ago
I don't think it's just the tone. At the start of the article, it implies relation and CRUD approaches should and will be replaced by Event Sourcing approach, but he doesn't support that, or even provide a good sense of pros and cons. In one of his comments (comment section) he mentions that the article was supposed to be a "how" not "why", and links to a "why" article, but that "why" article also doesn't do a good job of why with pros and cons. In summary: not a good presentation of the pros and cons which allows a person to clearly identify under what conditions this approach might be a reasonable tool. Additional note: A typical competing model, IME, is a relational model that writes business events at the same time state updates occur.
- lolinder 3y ago
  It's definitely a bad article. I was more commenting on why there isn't much substantial conversation here, even though there are lots of upvotes. Very few people even bothered to read it because the tone was so bizarre—I couldn't get past it, but it's not surprising to me that the content is low quality too.