3 ms·

Hey all: "Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, [etc...]. They're too common to be interesting." https://news.ycom

by dang 17d ago

Hey all: "Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, [etc...]. They're too common to be interesting." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

clipsy 17d ago
I think people may disagree with you on what constitutes a tangential annoyance. Is there any point at which the format is, in fact, a legitimate annoyance?
- downloadram 17d ago
  tangential and legitimate are not mutually exclusive. the majority of the grievances are infact the latter; they are legitimate what makes them also the former is that (and surely the reason for the rule) is that because these grievances are so commonly expressed when links are shared they create a near constant 'noise' in the signal to noise of each discussion, with signal being the idea or message intended to be shared by the poster rather than the medium it arrived in a better way to discuss the tangent or the medium would be by submitting its own HN post. that way theres a better S/N ratio for everything example: scientific breakthrough is shared on fbook signal: any discussion about that breakthrough or its Nth order effects on anything noise: any discussion about the fbook website, walled gardens, zark muckerburg, anything that would be on any link for that site regardless of the message inside the medium those discussions arent illegitimate, they are better served by targeted discussion on their posts like.. some websites are stylized the point of illegibility fbook website dark patterns popups make alt F4 ..rather than increasing noise across the whole of HN. this rule is closely related to another site rule: "use the best possible interpretation of the parent comment" because it too is a rule that is in place as an attempt to steer toward "curious discussion" (high S/N ratio) ( i will agree in this case the illegibility warrants a comment chain, holy smokes! )
- deleted 17d ago
  [deleted]
Markoff 17d ago
What's the point in linking unreadable website? I just opened it, saisd "Jesus!" and immediately closed it, I like my eyes. People should just flag unereable mess like this.
- aembleton 17d ago
  Just use reader view in your browser.
  - Markoff 17d ago
    It's a good tip, but if author can't be bothered to provide normally readable website, I am not interested in reading whatever he writes.
- xtiansimon 17d ago
  Random blogs are the magazine racks of today. Walk on.
- redwood 17d ago
  In this particular case the content is arguably related I mean I think it's essentially a performance art piece
glimshe 17d ago
Good dang, you're right but the annoyance with this one is far from tangential or "common"... If the site used a black font over black background it would be more readable as I could at least select the text and read it. To add insult to injury, the site's name flashes. I'd say that the ONE interesting thing about this link is exactly how exotically bad the presentation is!
cloverich 17d ago
Notably, I read this on both my iphone and mac (LG Ultrafine 5k). It is was enjoyable to read in a fun way on my phone, it did not really bug me as a fun blog font. I was more excited about the theme/design than the content. But on my main screen, which is hi res, it _did_ bug my eyes quite a bit. Interesting.
acheron 17d ago
Can we add “I think it sounds like AI writing” to the list of off topic tangential annoyances? Clicking into an HN thread and having the top comment being about em dashes or something is obnoxious.

by dang 17d ago

clipsy 17d ago

I think people may disagree with you on what constitutes a tangential annoyance. Is there any point at which the format is, in fact, a legitimate annoyance?

downloadram 17d ago
tangential and legitimate are not mutually exclusive. the majority of the grievances are infact the latter; they are legitimate what makes them also the former is that (and surely the reason for the rule) is that because these grievances are so commonly expressed when links are shared they create a near constant 'noise' in the signal to noise of each discussion, with signal being the idea or message intended to be shared by the poster rather than the medium it arrived in a better way to discuss the tangent or the medium would be by submitting its own HN post. that way theres a better S/N ratio for everything example: scientific breakthrough is shared on fbook signal: any discussion about that breakthrough or its Nth order effects on anything noise: any discussion about the fbook website, walled gardens, zark muckerburg, anything that would be on any link for that site regardless of the message inside the medium those discussions arent illegitimate, they are better served by targeted discussion on their posts like.. some websites are stylized the point of illegibility fbook website dark patterns popups make alt F4 ..rather than increasing noise across the whole of HN. this rule is closely related to another site rule: "use the best possible interpretation of the parent comment" because it too is a rule that is in place as an attempt to steer toward "curious discussion" (high S/N ratio) ( i will agree in this case the illegibility warrants a comment chain, holy smokes! )
deleted 17d ago
[deleted]

Markoff 17d ago

What's the point in linking unreadable website? I just opened it, saisd "Jesus!" and immediately closed it, I like my eyes. People should just flag unereable mess like this.

aembleton 17d ago
Just use reader view in your browser.
- Markoff 17d ago
  It's a good tip, but if author can't be bothered to provide normally readable website, I am not interested in reading whatever he writes.
xtiansimon 17d ago
Random blogs are the magazine racks of today. Walk on.
redwood 17d ago
In this particular case the content is arguably related I mean I think it's essentially a performance art piece

glimshe 17d ago

Good dang, you're right but the annoyance with this one is far from tangential or "common"... If the site used a black font over black background it would be more readable as I could at least select the text and read it. To add insult to injury, the site's name flashes. I'd say that the ONE interesting thing about this link is exactly how exotically bad the presentation is!

cloverich 17d ago

Notably, I read this on both my iphone and mac (LG Ultrafine 5k). It is was enjoyable to read in a fun way on my phone, it did not really bug me as a fun blog font. I was more excited about the theme/design than the content. But on my main screen, which is hi res, it _did_ bug my eyes quite a bit. Interesting.

acheron 17d ago

Can we add “I think it sounds like AI writing” to the list of off topic tangential annoyances? Clicking into an HN thread and having the top comment being about em dashes or something is obnoxious.