3 ms·
No, that is what it feels like to a primadonna when you mess with their words. They conflate the quality of their work, a highly objective measure, with breaki
by crikli 14y ago
No, that is what it feels like to a primadonna when you mess with their words. They conflate the quality of their work, a highly objective measure, with breaking tests and screwing up a server, a distinctly objective measure.
No one's work is sacrosanct and without opportunity for improvement. So when you're f-bombing someone because they altered your work, maybe stop to see if your work just wasn't all that good to begin with and needed a boost.
- bradleyland 14y agoThis isn't about changing someone's work, it's about effective collaboration. What's obvious to you may not be obvious to me. Whether it's an application or copy for a homepage, there are subtleties that a reviewer will miss. What makes a good application "great" isn't obvious. It's the little things hidden in the details. Often, we don't even notice the details. That's what makes great applications so difficult to replicate: you can't enumerate their greatness in a bullet-point list. Likewise with great copywriting. If you don't trust that every word your co-founder wrote has importance, and that you should at least review with them before making changes, then you didn't pick the right co-founder. It's ok to work toward improvement, but that work shouldn't be performed unilaterally. Finding it in yourself to trust those around you is a difficult trait to acquire, but it's essential to strong team building.
- crikli 14y ago"Likewise with great copywriting. If you don't trust that every word your co-founder wrote has importance, and that you should at least review with them before making changes, then you didn't pick the right co-founder. It's ok to work toward improvement, but that work shouldn't be performed unilaterally." Totally agree. The overarching issue here is cooperative communication.