3 ms·

Hyperbole that is quite obviously hyperbole is a well accepted literary device. It is a form of highlight via creative exaggeration of non-critical points, that

Hyperbole that is quite obviously hyperbole is a well accepted literary device. It is a form of highlight via creative exaggeration of non-critical points, that is transparent, not deceptive, in service of making serious adjacent points. [0] The point here is to highlight the actually cartoonish level of dysfunction and damage with an intentionally cartoonish flourish. The "villian" in this case can be colorfully interpreted as the real world isomorphism of a mustache stroking, side sneering perpetrator, from any usually fictional world-stakes good vs. evil story. Intentional exaggeration also communicates a bit of self-awareness, that gives heavy crisis alarms more credibility. The author's levity demonstrates a higher level awareness and humility, by making fun of his own extraordinarily serious thesis. Finally: gallows humor. Add humor when talking about depressing things to relieve the anxiety that often inhibits discussion and contemplation of difficult topics. [0] See famous "juvenile" writer Mark Twain.

romanhn 3y ago
Hyperbole is well and good in fiction and personal opinion pieces. I suppose my, and parent commenter's issue, is that we expected a certain type of writing, but got another. And that's fine. I don't have a dog in this fight, but to me it went beyond hyperbole and into personal attack territory. I called it juvenile because the descriptors lack nuance in the same way that "management bad, programmer good" arguments do. Having spent quite a bit of time on both sides, it's pretty clear that motivations, incentives, and constraints are not black and white, so I'm a bit more sensitive when I see people mocked without having full context.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  > it went beyond hyperbole and into personal attack territory. > the descriptors lack nuance > motivations, incentives, and constraints are not black and white Hyperbole isn't a knife. Any more than a political cartoonist's brush. It is satire. Biting humor. The more ridiculous the caricature, the less you are supposed to take the details literally. The "culprit" is a lightening rod. Taking the heat for what is obviously the result of a lot of people's seemingly poor or unfortunate judgements. Google search was a thing of beauty. Now it is an ugly swamp I have personally stopped trying to wade through.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  > people mocked without having full context This is a good point. This 3700 word article titled “The Man Who Killed Google Search” about Prabhakar Raghavan does not contain context for why the author would dislike Prabhakar Raghavan or speak ill of him professionally.
  - romanhn 3y ago
    To be clear, I meant the author does not have full context.
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      That makes sense. It is possible that Google search got better and not worse since it was taken over by the guy that used to run Yahoo search, in which case context would thoroughly vindicate the choice to promote SEO spam sites and make ads and search results nearly indistinguishable.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        This is like that scene in the Simpsons where Lisa tries to teach Homer that correlation does not equal causation by telling him that a rock keeps bears away, and he responds by wanting to buy the rock. Correlation isn't causation. Don't just buy that someone is fully to blame because someone told you they were fully to blame.
        jrflowers 3y ago
        What part of the article would you refute aside from generally disagreeing with the idea that a manager can be considered responsible for what they’re in charge of? I’m not sure “management possesses an indelible philosophical unknowability” was Lisa’s point
        etc-hosts 3y ago
        Zitron spends paragraphs trying to convince the reader that Google Search sucks now mostly because of the efforts of one person. I don't understand the correlation isn't causation argument in this context. If no one ever tried to convince others of their thesis, with numerous arguments, what's the point of writing?
- davidgerard 3y ago
  I notice you're not supplying that alleged "full context".
  - romanhn 3y ago
    Obviously I don't have it. The author doesn't either and he is the one making the big claims. Regardless, I'm not arguing the extent to which Prabhakar Raghavan contributed to Google Search quality, I haven't even heard the name before this post. I'm not a fan of the writing style, that is all.
    - davidgerard 3y ago
      Then you're loudly making a non-claim that things in general can't be written. However, Zitron has literally supplied and linked his evidence.
    - jrflowers 3y ago
      This makes sense. If you personally don’t like someone’s writing style it means that they do not have the factual basis to back up their claims even if they provide them. The exonerating context exists because the meanness online cannot be both correct and not to your stylistic preference
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> Hyperbole that is quite obviously hyperbole It's not at all obvious that the author intends to sound hyperbolic. At the risk of Poe's Law here, they come across as saying exactly what they intend to say, perhaps attempting to appeal to an audience looking for such portrayals.
- Nevermark 3y ago
  Pinning everything on one manager, no matter how related and relevant, is obviously hyperbolic. A lot of people, and whover they report to, right to the top, are responsible too. But the fact remains, that this manager is (according to the essay) strongly associated with major product misfires. At best, they didn’t manage to influence decisions down better paths. And the enshittification of Google is so obvious, so bad for customers and what has become a utility for the Internet in general, that identifying and shaming those responsible seems like useful customer-citizen feedback to me. People need to push back as the quality of the online environment matters. No respect for the value extractors who keep showing up to ride on the coattails of the value makers! (Even when they are the same people.) The gentleman being called out, or another representative, is welcome to clarify why Google Search is really better than it presents. Or why they are not responsible for its precipitous quality drop - I.e. insurmountable constraints and challenges or whatever their view is. Although those kinds of excuses are not very credible when ad revenue over optimization is the obvious problem. They are even more welcome to reverse the rot.
WD-42 3y ago
Thank you for this. I found this article compelling not only because of the subject matter but because of how it was written. It's possible for something to be informative and entertaining at the same time - I think this article is both. I enjoy the flourishes and creativity.

romanhn 3y ago

Hyperbole is well and good in fiction and personal opinion pieces. I suppose my, and parent commenter's issue, is that we expected a certain type of writing, but got another. And that's fine. I don't have a dog in this fight, but to me it went beyond hyperbole and into personal attack territory. I called it juvenile because the descriptors lack nuance in the same way that "management bad, programmer good" arguments do. Having spent quite a bit of time on both sides, it's pretty clear that motivations, incentives, and constraints are not black and white, so I'm a bit more sensitive when I see people mocked without having full context.

Nevermark 3y ago
> it went beyond hyperbole and into personal attack territory. > the descriptors lack nuance > motivations, incentives, and constraints are not black and white Hyperbole isn't a knife. Any more than a political cartoonist's brush. It is satire. Biting humor. The more ridiculous the caricature, the less you are supposed to take the details literally. The "culprit" is a lightening rod. Taking the heat for what is obviously the result of a lot of people's seemingly poor or unfortunate judgements. Google search was a thing of beauty. Now it is an ugly swamp I have personally stopped trying to wade through.
jrflowers 3y ago
> people mocked without having full context This is a good point. This 3700 word article titled “The Man Who Killed Google Search” about Prabhakar Raghavan does not contain context for why the author would dislike Prabhakar Raghavan or speak ill of him professionally.
- romanhn 3y ago
  To be clear, I meant the author does not have full context.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    That makes sense. It is possible that Google search got better and not worse since it was taken over by the guy that used to run Yahoo search, in which case context would thoroughly vindicate the choice to promote SEO spam sites and make ads and search results nearly indistinguishable.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      This is like that scene in the Simpsons where Lisa tries to teach Homer that correlation does not equal causation by telling him that a rock keeps bears away, and he responds by wanting to buy the rock. Correlation isn't causation. Don't just buy that someone is fully to blame because someone told you they were fully to blame.
      - jrflowers 3y ago
        What part of the article would you refute aside from generally disagreeing with the idea that a manager can be considered responsible for what they’re in charge of? I’m not sure “management possesses an indelible philosophical unknowability” was Lisa’s point
      - etc-hosts 3y ago
        Zitron spends paragraphs trying to convince the reader that Google Search sucks now mostly because of the efforts of one person. I don't understand the correlation isn't causation argument in this context. If no one ever tried to convince others of their thesis, with numerous arguments, what's the point of writing?
davidgerard 3y ago
I notice you're not supplying that alleged "full context".
- romanhn 3y ago
  Obviously I don't have it. The author doesn't either and he is the one making the big claims. Regardless, I'm not arguing the extent to which Prabhakar Raghavan contributed to Google Search quality, I haven't even heard the name before this post. I'm not a fan of the writing style, that is all.
  - davidgerard 3y ago
    Then you're loudly making a non-claim that things in general can't be written. However, Zitron has literally supplied and linked his evidence.
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    This makes sense. If you personally don’t like someone’s writing style it means that they do not have the factual basis to back up their claims even if they provide them. The exonerating context exists because the meanness online cannot be both correct and not to your stylistic preference

JoshTriplett 3y ago

> Hyperbole that is quite obviously hyperbole It's not at all obvious that the author intends to sound hyperbolic. At the risk of Poe's Law here, they come across as saying exactly what they intend to say, perhaps attempting to appeal to an audience looking for such portrayals.

Nevermark 3y ago
Pinning everything on one manager, no matter how related and relevant, is obviously hyperbolic. A lot of people, and whover they report to, right to the top, are responsible too. But the fact remains, that this manager is (according to the essay) strongly associated with major product misfires. At best, they didn’t manage to influence decisions down better paths. And the enshittification of Google is so obvious, so bad for customers and what has become a utility for the Internet in general, that identifying and shaming those responsible seems like useful customer-citizen feedback to me. People need to push back as the quality of the online environment matters. No respect for the value extractors who keep showing up to ride on the coattails of the value makers! (Even when they are the same people.) The gentleman being called out, or another representative, is welcome to clarify why Google Search is really better than it presents. Or why they are not responsible for its precipitous quality drop - I.e. insurmountable constraints and challenges or whatever their view is. Although those kinds of excuses are not very credible when ad revenue over optimization is the obvious problem. They are even more welcome to reverse the rot.

WD-42 3y ago

Thank you for this. I found this article compelling not only because of the subject matter but because of how it was written. It's possible for something to be informative and entertaining at the same time - I think this article is both. I enjoy the flourishes and creativity.