2 ms·

I agree, just that darn character limit. You got a way to combine the two thoughts into 80 characters or less? The difference between a lede (from a quote) and

by robg 17y ago

I agree, just that darn character limit. You got a way to combine the two thoughts into 80 characters or less? The difference between a lede (from a quote) and a shortened tweet, I guess.

scott_s 17y ago
In this case, I think it changed the tenor the the statement completely. How about: Gladwell to aspiring journalists: Become an expert first, then write
- robg 17y ago
  Upvote but I try not to write unique ledes here even if they're true. It just seems like a slippery slope from interpreting to simply reporting. I link, you decide! That's good but I'm afraid my edit clock ran out.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    What's worse, a partial direct quotation that you know will leave the wrong impression, or a summary of the point you find interesting that might betray your bias? I'd rather go with the bias. Particularly since the literal title for this article would just be "Q&A: Author Malcom Gladwell." That doesn't tell me why you linked to it.
    - robg 17y ago
      Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer that question and for me I bet I'm not consistent day to day or hour to hour. To try to put into words what I think is going on in my head: I link based on something in the piece that I think folks here will find interesting. But I don't assume that the title will be sufficient. Only that it will be a primer for following the link. In this case, the given title wasn't good. So I tried to pick out the primer that led to my saying: "That's interesting". But admittedly I won't spend more than a few seconds thinking about the title. I'm just not too worried about accuracy so long as it's in the general semantic ballpark. I'd say if it leads to an incomplete impression which the article resolves then I'm okay with it. That's why I added the ellipse. Sorry, I'll try to do better but I'll probably fail. The bookmarklet makes it easy to just throw up interesting stuff. The title for me is simply a shorthand for saying: This was interesting to me. I similarly interpret upvotes - this was interesting to the community. Comments start to get at accuracy - kind of. To be honest though, even as Gladwell says that second part, it seems to me he wants real world experience informing journalism. I think that's the most interesting bit. Grad school, it seems to me, is itself sheltered from "real" stories. That's my current bias, I guess.
- omouse 17y ago
  It'd be nice if he did that himself...
  - unalone 17y ago
    He's a brilliant writer and a terrible journalist. I agree with you. I can tolerate him, because he's not obnoxious about his writings (versus somebody like Cory Doctorow, who has a similar ratio of popularity-to-understanding), but at the same time a lot of what he says has got to be taken with a grain of salt.

by robg 17y ago

I agree, just that darn character limit. You got a way to combine the two thoughts into 80 characters or less? The difference between a lede (from a quote) and a shortened tweet, I guess.

scott_s 17y ago

In this case, I think it changed the tenor the the statement completely. How about: Gladwell to aspiring journalists: Become an expert first, then write

robg 17y ago
Upvote but I try not to write unique ledes here even if they're true. It just seems like a slippery slope from interpreting to simply reporting. I link, you decide! That's good but I'm afraid my edit clock ran out.
- scott_s 17y ago
  What's worse, a partial direct quotation that you know will leave the wrong impression, or a summary of the point you find interesting that might betray your bias? I'd rather go with the bias. Particularly since the literal title for this article would just be "Q&A: Author Malcom Gladwell." That doesn't tell me why you linked to it.
  - robg 17y ago
    Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer that question and for me I bet I'm not consistent day to day or hour to hour. To try to put into words what I think is going on in my head: I link based on something in the piece that I think folks here will find interesting. But I don't assume that the title will be sufficient. Only that it will be a primer for following the link. In this case, the given title wasn't good. So I tried to pick out the primer that led to my saying: "That's interesting". But admittedly I won't spend more than a few seconds thinking about the title. I'm just not too worried about accuracy so long as it's in the general semantic ballpark. I'd say if it leads to an incomplete impression which the article resolves then I'm okay with it. That's why I added the ellipse. Sorry, I'll try to do better but I'll probably fail. The bookmarklet makes it easy to just throw up interesting stuff. The title for me is simply a shorthand for saying: This was interesting to me. I similarly interpret upvotes - this was interesting to the community. Comments start to get at accuracy - kind of. To be honest though, even as Gladwell says that second part, it seems to me he wants real world experience informing journalism. I think that's the most interesting bit. Grad school, it seems to me, is itself sheltered from "real" stories. That's my current bias, I guess.
omouse 17y ago
It'd be nice if he did that himself...
- unalone 17y ago
  He's a brilliant writer and a terrible journalist. I agree with you. I can tolerate him, because he's not obnoxious about his writings (versus somebody like Cory Doctorow, who has a similar ratio of popularity-to-understanding), but at the same time a lot of what he says has got to be taken with a grain of salt.