4 ms·

> instead of expressing displeasure at the imagined expectations imposed on readers of the article Well it is the author's expectation, isn't it? I also left t

> instead of expressing displeasure at the imagined expectations imposed on readers of the article Well it is the author's expectation, isn't it? I also left the article wondering what in the world conker was. I don't think it matters where the game is from or where the reader lives. It's just good writing to do a bit of explaining for the foreign readers, of which The Guardian knows they have.

beeboobaa3 2y ago
It's the guardian. You're not the target audience. Not everything is about america.
- detourdog 2y ago
  To be fair it was written in English.
chmod775 2y ago
Now imagine adding an explanation of american football rules on every article about it, of which there are probably hundreds written a day. I have no clue about american football rules - I barely know the sport exists, the ball has a funny shape, and that it's popular in the states. Still it would be absolute nonsense to explain their basics every time someone talks about them and I won't expect anyone to do so. Explanations like that will just annoy the vast majority of readers, who will have a preexisting interest in the sport and thus will already be familiar with the rules. That said, I had even less of a clue what the hell conkers is. Luckily I have basic technological literacy and was able to find the wikipedia article[1] in a fraction of the time it takes one to complain. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conkers
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago
  No one said it was true for every game. Conker is more akin to corn hole than football, but maybe even more obscure.
  - foldr 2y ago
    It's not obscure in the UK. You can find any number of equally 'obscure' cultural practices referenced in American newspapers without explanation. It's unreasonable to expect a British newspaper to be free of British cultural background assumptions just because it's viewable by an international audience.
    - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
      It appears that about 38% of visits to their site come from the UK, so it might be that the majority of their readers aren't familiar with conker. https://www.similarweb.com/website/theguardian.com/#geography https://www.similarweb.com/website/theguardian.com/#geograph... I guess your point makes sense, though. There isn't the obligation to explain anything. I just personally think it's good writing to anticipate what your readers may not likely understand.
      - foldr 2y ago
        The NYT has 150 million monthly readers globally of which 27% are international. I still wouldn't expect it to insert helpful explainers every time it mentions a cultural phenomenon specific to the US.

beeboobaa3 2y ago

It's the guardian. You're not the target audience. Not everything is about america.

detourdog 2y ago
To be fair it was written in English.

chmod775 2y ago

Now imagine adding an explanation of american football rules on every article about it, of which there are probably hundreds written a day. I have no clue about american football rules - I barely know the sport exists, the ball has a funny shape, and that it's popular in the states. Still it would be absolute nonsense to explain their basics every time someone talks about them and I won't expect anyone to do so. Explanations like that will just annoy the vast majority of readers, who will have a preexisting interest in the sport and thus will already be familiar with the rules. That said, I had even less of a clue what the hell conkers is. Luckily I have basic technological literacy and was able to find the wikipedia article[1] in a fraction of the time it takes one to complain. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conkers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conkers

bitshiftfaced 2y ago
No one said it was true for every game. Conker is more akin to corn hole than football, but maybe even more obscure.
- foldr 2y ago
  It's not obscure in the UK. You can find any number of equally 'obscure' cultural practices referenced in American newspapers without explanation. It's unreasonable to expect a British newspaper to be free of British cultural background assumptions just because it's viewable by an international audience.
  - bitshiftfaced 2y ago
    It appears that about 38% of visits to their site come from the UK, so it might be that the majority of their readers aren't familiar with conker. https://www.similarweb.com/website/theguardian.com/#geography https://www.similarweb.com/website/theguardian.com/#geograph... I guess your point makes sense, though. There isn't the obligation to explain anything. I just personally think it's good writing to anticipate what your readers may not likely understand.
    - foldr 2y ago
      The NYT has 150 million monthly readers globally of which 27% are international. I still wouldn't expect it to insert helpful explainers every time it mentions a cultural phenomenon specific to the US.