3 ms·
It's just sad that the actual review, which is tremendously interesting and substantial, has noticeably fewer votes than this, the #1 link. Is the oft-mentione
by frou_dh 14y ago
It's just sad that the actual review, which is tremendously interesting and substantial, has noticeably fewer votes than this, the #1 link.
Is the oft-mentioned decline of HN a bunch of tiny cuts?
- pflats 14y agoSiracusa's review is expected, and I'm sure a lot of HN folks saw it coming. Despite the fact that it's new and comprehensive, it's not nearly as new and exciting as Marco's blog post. Plus, comedy will almost always do better than a review.
- drostie 14y agoThe actual review also is about half the minimum length of a novel[1], and as this review describes, takes two hours to read. In some ways I'll agree that it's appropriate because it "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" or so, but it strikes me that we should amortize across the time spent on the subject. If you compare this to, say, spending two hours watching lectures from online courses, I am not sure the review of Mountain Lion really holds up. In that sense, the review-of-the-review indeed packs much more density-of-gratification than the review did. If the gratification density is to be reflected in the points value, then the points are justly apportioned. [1] I am basing this purely on the word count and the fact that NaNoWriMo requires 50,000 words to classify something as a novel; I have not checked to see how actual novels fare against this goal.