2 ms·
I don't think that's "vitriol", I think it's constructive criticism. if Gabriel thought what tferris wrote is vitriolic, there's virtually no chance he'd apprec
by seiji 14y ago
I don't think that's "vitriol", I think it's constructive criticism.
if Gabriel thought what tferris wrote is vitriolic, there's virtually no chance he'd appreciate my point of view.
The problem is: I can't see you. Without visual cues, poor writing sounds violent. Quadruply so when only using bulleted lists. (Hint: email someone and list their faults in a bulleted list. Then have them do the same to you.) Would you say to Gabriel's face, "You have a crappy logo. And your domain name is too long. Plus, I could sleaze a four letter domain name out from under somebody else. Why can't you? You must be pretty incompetent. Your product is awkward and you don't even live in san francisco. Why won't you just go away?"
That's what the comments sounded like to me.
You have no right to be heard. Constructive criticism is criticism without temper and a slight acknowledgement you appreciate being listened to at all: "Hey Gabe, I was thinking about duckduckgo and had some feedback about things that feel off to me. Maybe you'll find my opinions useful. I think the duck logo is kinda strange. It looks too duck-rapey to me. Your center aligned results are a little quirky (everybody else is 'more left'), but I like the inline favicons. I used to think the auto-wikipedia results were distracting, but google started polluting its results with much worse things now, so you were ahead of the curve there. The name always trips me up too -- maybe spinning off an alternatively-branded domain name could make it better? At least your name isn't as tragic as blekko. Thanks for listening."
- sunir 14y agoTrue, that's why we must assume good faith when reading what others write. One will be right more than one is wrong and learn more than one would ever otherwise. http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/AssumeGoodFaith http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/AssumeGoodFaith