3 ms·

Probably http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5341679 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5341679

jtheory 14y ago
Ah, I was looking at this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5339287 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5339287 ...which admittedly doesn't have a great discussion, but it's not worthless. The one you linked, though, is worth highlighting as a completely useless discussion, due to some meanness (mild as it goes), but mostly just a sad lack of thoughtful commenters, all of whom seemed to think several dozen redundant comments about the OP's headshot on his blog post was valuable feedback. I didn't see any discussion whatsoever on the actual content of the OP.
- jgeerts 14y ago
  Thought that it was this one too. Actually I don't understand the problem, maybe a reference to what he thinks is 'mean' would be useful.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
Terretta 14y ago
Definitely the post in question. However, what I see in that thread are valid criticisms. The article and author were self promoting the author's expertise in UX -- with the promotion rather more prominent than the article content. Meanwhile, aside from the, um, "self aggrandizement", the site violated cardinal UX rules. Readers called him on it without using faux polite weasel words, and he says he'll fix it. Pretty sure constructive feedback is what submitting your own material to HN is for.
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  Criticism-shmiticism. That discussion lacks basic civility. A good half of comments there is not something that their authors would've been willing (or have guts) to say to guy's face. Hilariously, they are in fact being mean.
  - pessimizer 14y ago
    There's a lot of things that I truly believe that I wouldn't say to someone's face, depending on the size and belligerence of the someone, and whether I care at all whether they agree with what I believe to be true. Using that as a metric is silly. Is that too mean?
justjimmy 14y ago
I don't think it's that one. Time-wise, it doesn't add up. It's more likely it's the other link that's posted - the official FB Feed announcement.

Ah, I was looking at this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5339287 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5339287 ...which admittedly doesn't have a great discussion, but it's not worthless. The one you linked, though, is worth highlighting as a completely useless discussion, due to some meanness (mild as it goes), but mostly just a sad lack of thoughtful commenters, all of whom seemed to think several dozen redundant comments about the OP's headshot on his blog post was valuable feedback. I didn't see any discussion whatsoever on the actual content of the OP.

jgeerts 14y ago
Thought that it was this one too. Actually I don't understand the problem, maybe a reference to what he thinks is 'mean' would be useful.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

Terretta 14y ago

Definitely the post in question. However, what I see in that thread are valid criticisms. The article and author were self promoting the author's expertise in UX -- with the promotion rather more prominent than the article content. Meanwhile, aside from the, um, "self aggrandizement", the site violated cardinal UX rules. Readers called him on it without using faux polite weasel words, and he says he'll fix it. Pretty sure constructive feedback is what submitting your own material to HN is for.

huhtenberg 14y ago
Criticism-shmiticism. That discussion lacks basic civility. A good half of comments there is not something that their authors would've been willing (or have guts) to say to guy's face. Hilariously, they are in fact being mean.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  There's a lot of things that I truly believe that I wouldn't say to someone's face, depending on the size and belligerence of the someone, and whether I care at all whether they agree with what I believe to be true. Using that as a metric is silly. Is that too mean?

justjimmy 14y ago

I don't think it's that one. Time-wise, it doesn't add up. It's more likely it's the other link that's posted - the official FB Feed announcement.