3 ms·
Why do you think I wasn't being objective? Or by "objective" do you actually mean the opposite (i.e. that I always have to be critical of Google, which is prec
by endtime 13y ago
Why do you think I wasn't being objective? Or by "objective" do you actually mean the opposite (i.e. that I always have to be critical of Google, which is precisely as objective as never being critical of Google)?
We are very critical internally, and I have done my share of criticizing (any Googler can verify this). And if it will make you feel better, personally I do agree with the author's point that Google+ is "getting on" everything. But this article, overall, is rambling and internally inconsistent, to the extent that I genuinely wasn't sure if the OP was being sarcastic by calling it "well-written".
- rm999 13y ago>Or by "objective" do you actually mean the opposite You're being very snarky and assuming the worst in people's comments. Both samspenc and I meant what we said, as most people generally do. Seriously, you've been less civil than you may realize. What do I mean by objective? You downvoted a comment that is actually pretty standard/common here ("I liked this article because X"). I can only imagine you acted this way because you are biased towards the topic; it's easy to deny you aren't, but you broke downvoting protocol either way. You're contributing to the stereotype of googlers acting badly in threads about google (my comments in this thread have been downvoted, something that virtually never happens to me on hackernews).
- endtime 13y ago>I can only imagine you acted this way because you are biased towards the topic This is exactly what I'm objecting to. >you broke downvoting protocol either way How did I break protocol if I am not (as you claim) lying?