3 ms·
should we all just instinctively applaud it? No. Which is in the site docs as well: When something isn't good, you needn't pretend that it is, but don't be gr
by pvg 2y ago
should we all just instinctively applaud it?
No. Which is in the site docs as well:
When something isn't good, you needn't pretend that it is, but don't be gratuitously negative.
But more importantly, what makes your comment shallow is not the ostensible depth and heft of your links, it's that it shows little evidence of having looked at the thing being showhn - it's a thread-invariant trope.
If someone does a Show HN for a Twitter for pets you are not required to applaud it, instinctively or otherwise, but you are asked to not reflexively dismiss it in thread comments. Critique is fair game, of course.
- scarface_74 2y agoI mean if you really want to quote HN rules > Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".
- pvg 2y agoI didn't comment on whether you've read the article. There's a strong expectation a toplevel comment in a Show HN thread is concretely about the thing being showhn. That's not some complicated thing that requires the subtle parsing of multiple rules.
- scarface_74 2y agoYes, and you quoted yourself that just because it’s a “ShowHN” doesn’t mean that it has to be praised effusively and get a attaboy. My negativity wasn’t “gratuitous”. His tool was meant to predict stock price. Every reputable article shows that kind of analysis is foolhardy- or as the WSJ put it - about as good as blind monkeys
- pvg 2y agoI think the key thing is that it was a straightforwardly poor Show HN comment. What Specific Word of The Guidelines It Hath Not Transgressed Against as well as Who Is The Real Guidelines Sinner are both not particularly important.