6 ms·
Meta is Murder
- fogus 17y agoSometimes I just want to scream: Stop having 3-hour discussions about what to name the product and just build the product!
- sant0sk1 17y agoI understand your sentiment, but I also really like trying to think of cool names...
- fogus 17y agoAs do I; which is probably why I have yet to scream.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- roc 17y agomasturbating. technically: masturbating to masturbating to masturbating to a discussion about masturbating.
- forgotmypasswd 17y agoI've heard this called "name-paralysis"
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- joe_the_user 17y agoThe name of a product is really, really important to the product's success. The reason that three-hour long discussions about it are frustrating that they aren't a good way to find a good name - all the names you've heard in the discussion blur together and it's not possible to "get" the quality of any uniquely good names. A lot of design is like that - it is the art of just having a simple thing that "works". The simple thing seems easy but is really hard because you have to consider many factors but not do a simple compromise. It's also something that more less can't be done by a simple committee.
- o314 17y agoI do that with class/variable names when coding. Then I scream at myself.
- mrtron 17y agoI don't think this sort of topic qualifies as Hacker News.
- calcnerd256 17y agoI guess they didn't get the joke.
- GavinB 17y agoA lot of people cite MetaTalk as a reason that MetaFilter works. If you talk to a regular from the site they'll tell you MetaTalk is key to the success of the site because it's a sort of release valve. The solution to the "not hacker news" problem isn't to shout people down. You need to give them that release valve. The comments are a symptom of a problem, and it needs to be addressed through the site architecture.
- chaqke 17y agocould be handled by directing people to a posting about hacker news, where they could comment to their hearts content (or, hopefully, read historical conclusions to their comment's topic, if one already exists)
- akkartik 17y agoI tried out and stopped using the JoS discussion boards (way before the days of reddit) primarily because this release valve didn't exist. My submission would occasionally get magicked away and there was no recourse, no way to ask why that had happened.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Evgeny 17y ago[obligatory comment on flagging instead of complaining]
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- msluyter 17y agoTrue, but I think one point the article makes that I find interesting is that people need some avenue for discussion of meta topics. We're naturally driven to justify our actions (there's a good book called "why?" on the pervasiveness of this psychological need.) In the case of HN, we don't just want to flag articles, we want to explain why we think the article is on or off topic. Doing so gets you modded down, yet people seem compelled to do it anyway. So perhaps some sort of meta-discussion mechanism (a separate page, or the ability to add a comment about why you flagged something, etc...) would be of value? OTOH, the level of discussion is better here than most sites, so perhaps we should leave well enough alone.
- jrockway 17y agoI think he just wants to ignore any criticism aimed at Stack Overflow. That's the impression I get from his comments on the meta site, anyway. "LALALAL ITS FINE LALALA"
- acexman 17y agowhile there is one (annoying) search result that points to www.experts-exchange.com stack overflow is relief.
- biotech 17y ago"Generally speaking, I am not a fan of the meta." Ironic that he should say this, considering that a considerable portion of his communications relate to meta-discussions.
- brown9-2 17y agoThis blog post is a discussion of a podcast discussion of where to host discussion of stackoverflow discussion.
- colinprince 17y agoIn this specific case, he wants to talk about talking. In general against; in this case, for.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- embeddedradical 17y agoToo much meta is bad, too little meta is also bad. If you live by 'meta murders', you're going to become a braindead doer, instead of a creative and insightful contributor. I believe that to find a good balance of meta in all things, we should simply look at meta-cognition and find balance there, and then extrapolate out. I recommend checking out this article from Seed Magazine: http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/thinking_meta/ http://seedmagazine.com/content/print/thinking_meta/ : Unless we are aware of our tendency to act irrationally in certain situations, then we’ll continue to act irrationally. That much is predictable.Although the mind is full of flaws, we can learn to outsmart them. I think for an approach to productive use of meta discussion in these tech circles, we should begin by looking at the already existing strategies for utilizing meta-cognition for our benefit - like the ones listed here: http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/metacognition/start.htm http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/Articles/metacognition/start.htm In short, thinking about thinking, thinking about you think, are quite valuable, but do it wrong, do it too much, and you end up driving yourself nuts -- and say crazy things like meta is murder and run away from it....'I will not think, I think too much, will not think...will be braindead zombie not questioning what I'm doing...' -- also, your analysis of your thoughts isn't often that valuable to other people, which I think relates to why we find reading about bloggers telling us how they blog is kind of mmm, boring.
- tezza 17y agoI think a better term is Self-Referential Meta data is not always self referential.
- joe_the_user 17y agoThe thing about meta-discussion is, to an extent, it is people talking to hear themselves or each other talk. That sounds terrible but is it? Suppose instead of just talking, people sang? Singing to hear yourself sing is wonderful. So the question isn't just whether you are accomplishing anything with meta-comments. The question is whether you either accomplishing or whether you are just enjoying what you're doing in a somewhat rich, creative or satisfying way. This seems more likely when the meta-discussion is humorous and good spirited than when it is angry and mean-spirited. But perhaps some people enjoy trying to destroy other people's intellectual position on some level or other.
- o314 17y agoActually this is so spot on! I ADMIT! I have been living a meta-life for far too long now. A life where I ponder about HOW I want to/should live my life. In a sense it has given me much - a perceived knowledge and understanding about me, life and the world. All in theory. Lately in my meta-living I've come to the conclusion that that's just what it is. A meta-life. I need to stop meta and go out there, to actually get things done. Get practical.