3 ms·

You're disappointed because you expected the article to be about X, but it was actually about Y, where both X and Y are words in the article's title. (X=Google,

You're disappointed because you expected the article to be about X, but it was actually about Y, where both X and Y are words in the article's title. (X=Google, Y=I) Not a great reason to get so unkind.

toyg 13y ago
I probably resent the fact that she leveraged the Google brand in order to make me read lots of words about a perfectly-normal midlife crisis I had no interest in. I clearly put too much trust in the upvoting masses on HN to weed out this sort of stuff. I apologize if her (or anyone's) feelings were hurt by my comments.
- haberman 13y ago
  I can see where you're coming from. The people who are upvoting it are probably doing so because they can relate to her struggles and her journey. But for you it's a disappointment because you expected insight about Google and this article does not deliver any.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  There's a certain irony between your comment and her article. Her article was about how you shouldn't care what other people desire, you should figure out what you desire and go after that. After all, they're not the one living your life. Your comment is about how you read the article because of the Google brand, and that you trusted the upvoting masses on HN to weed this out. Notice the language. "Google brand" - why does the fact that this has the word "Google" in it make you want to read it? "upvoting masses" - you trust the masses of HN more than your own judgment? Perhaps there was something in this article that's worth reading after all, and you glossed over it? (FWIW, it was my upvote that put this article on the front page - it had 2 upvotes on the New page and was 10 minutes old when I saw it, and I liked it, and so gave it the 3rd upvote.)
  - toyg 13y ago
    > you trust the masses of HN more than your own judgment? I trust the HN hivemind to do (most of) the filtering for me, absolutely. Otherwise I wouldn't read HN, I'd just subscribe to the gazillion feeds out there and read through each and every headline. Despite evidence to the contrary (the number of replies I've written in this thread clearly show that I don't have a highly-driven, high-achieving life similar to TFA's author), I can't dedicate an infinite amount of time to reading stuff on the internet. Past that, I trust my own judgement in defining what is actually interesting to me by skimming headlines. Finally, once I've read an article, I'm not doubting my inner-self's ability to judge whether the material is actually interesting or not. This is one of those few times where the two-level filter (HN + me skimming headlines) failed to weed out uninteresting material, and I assign part of the responsibility to the linkbaiting title. I don't think that's unreasonable on my part.

toyg 13y ago

I probably resent the fact that she leveraged the Google brand in order to make me read lots of words about a perfectly-normal midlife crisis I had no interest in. I clearly put too much trust in the upvoting masses on HN to weed out this sort of stuff. I apologize if her (or anyone's) feelings were hurt by my comments.

haberman 13y ago
I can see where you're coming from. The people who are upvoting it are probably doing so because they can relate to her struggles and her journey. But for you it's a disappointment because you expected insight about Google and this article does not deliver any.
nostrademons 13y ago
There's a certain irony between your comment and her article. Her article was about how you shouldn't care what other people desire, you should figure out what you desire and go after that. After all, they're not the one living your life. Your comment is about how you read the article because of the Google brand, and that you trusted the upvoting masses on HN to weed this out. Notice the language. "Google brand" - why does the fact that this has the word "Google" in it make you want to read it? "upvoting masses" - you trust the masses of HN more than your own judgment? Perhaps there was something in this article that's worth reading after all, and you glossed over it? (FWIW, it was my upvote that put this article on the front page - it had 2 upvotes on the New page and was 10 minutes old when I saw it, and I liked it, and so gave it the 3rd upvote.)
- toyg 13y ago
  > you trust the masses of HN more than your own judgment? I trust the HN hivemind to do (most of) the filtering for me, absolutely. Otherwise I wouldn't read HN, I'd just subscribe to the gazillion feeds out there and read through each and every headline. Despite evidence to the contrary (the number of replies I've written in this thread clearly show that I don't have a highly-driven, high-achieving life similar to TFA's author), I can't dedicate an infinite amount of time to reading stuff on the internet. Past that, I trust my own judgement in defining what is actually interesting to me by skimming headlines. Finally, once I've read an article, I'm not doubting my inner-self's ability to judge whether the material is actually interesting or not. This is one of those few times where the two-level filter (HN + me skimming headlines) failed to weed out uninteresting material, and I assign part of the responsibility to the linkbaiting title. I don't think that's unreasonable on my part.