7 ms·

Critiques have substance. Destructive criticism is just negativity for the sake of negativity. I do agree though, the bigger figures get their share of undeserv

Critiques have substance. Destructive criticism is just negativity for the sake of negativity. I do agree though, the bigger figures get their share of undeserved hate around here.

irrigation 11y ago
the bigger figures get their share of undeserved hate around here The bigger figures become untouchable, above reproach, around here. There are some figures who are literally toxic, but because they've become a part of the core group they can get away with it. And if you doubt or question them, you must be a troll. This is fairly normal group behavior, of course. It's a "group is its own worst enemy" behavior. It's how groups become insular and delusional and self-supporting. The identification and vilification of external enemies. Religious veneration. HN in a nutshell. It would be an interesting exercise to remove names from comments for a while and see how they do. I suspect the exercise would surprise some people. Further, some of the biggest names around here are masters of self-promotion. As much as we can cheer on "transparency", it isn't so selfless when it's used to farm SEO, or to fish for consulting engagements. I'm actually surprised BCC didn't go for much more simply for the pagerank value. This post has fallen off the front page, with which it will be dominated by the herd and I expect a rapid moderation influx that sees anything other that raw praise fade to transparency.
- PopeOfNope 11y ago
  You think you're making a logical argument, but all I hear is bitterness and rhetoric. Bitterness is toxic and it drips from all of your posts in this thread. Why? You could make the same points with kinder language and get farther with this crowd than you are right now. Also, if you have logical points to make, surely you can back them up with specific examples? I'd be interested in reading what comments other people have made that you think would have been downvoted had it come from somebody else. Now that I think about it, an HN alternative without karma where everyone is anonymous would be an interesting experiment.
  - irrigation 11y ago
    This is exactly the sort of post that you find regarding quick fix solutions and Make Money Fast schemes. Don't believe in the magical cure-all nature of Trend Of The Week? So bitter and negative.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - PopeOfNope 11y ago
      So we're supposed to be skeptical of everyone's intentions but your own? Why should we believe you over anybody else who posts here? The fact you haven't supplied any evidence but instead rely entirely on manipulating emotions flags you for what you are: a troll.
      - dang 11y ago
        > what you are: a troll Please don't make threads worse by feeding comments you think are trolling. Instead, flag them and move on. To flag a comment, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag'.
        irrigation 11y ago
        Your raw incompetence is truly boundless. The vast majority of my comments were positive until this story fell a number of pages back, when the shills appeared in full effect, you being their master. Your shadowban is pathetic. Flagging while leaving the utterly trollery of people like tptacek is...it is a marvel.
- normloman 11y ago
  Don't listen to the replies. You ain't bitter at all. In what planet does exposing obvious groupthink count as being toxic?
  - irrigation 11y ago
    HN has been absolutely usurped to become the personal sales vehicles of a few people, and the raw gullibility of many in the crowd has reached incredible proportions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9603840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9603840 That comment was flagged (despite sitting at a positive score), and you likely can't see it. That it is flagged is ludicrous, and just demonstrates the circling of the wagons. Here was the actual comment- This is a recurring theme of these sorts of replies (along with cries of jealousy or ad hominem attacks by people circling the wagons). "Factual", when the things I am questioning are based upon no demonstrated facts at all. patio11 gave advice on consulting which, as a long time consultant -- rather successfully (but still not enough to start doling wisdom) -- I found completely at odds with the reality I've endured, but it's a big world so maybe I just fly in different circles. It was advice being conveyed to people looking to enter or already in the game, and is purportedly based upon real world success and feedback. My first suspicion is that it's a piece obviously intending to draw attention to his newest venture (Starfighter, just as so many prior pieces were driven to focus SEO and attention on BCC, though we've seen that the return on that was miserable for the time invested and opportunity lost). That's always a warning side -- people often tend to aggrandize when seeking attention and link juice (and to find pat, sure-fire success formulas, because easy solution posts do best), and coincidentally that piece was linked to far and wide for the extraordinary claims. The second is that it is building a reputation at the cost of just words, which you can see throughout this thread: "Well BCC [a project that has seen so little success most people would have abandoned it long ago] was just for fun. He's really a super successful consultant." Because, the story goes, he was picking and choosing among clients shoveling money at him. $30K per week? $40K? Why not $50K? Just keep those rates hidden and escalating, biding your time and soon enough the money truck starts dumping. First they were successful for being an expert at optimizing a business. Now they're a high flying, top tier consultant that was so successful they hung up the hat. Are those facts? The former we have empirical evidence to the contrary, and the latter is founded only in words. It does not matter how personally protective of him you may feel, this is being doled out as life proven advice, and it is critical that everyone, no matter how much they think someone is a part of the community, be critical and naturally skeptical. Advice founded in success needs to demonstrate that success, and there is just nothing there beyond hand waving. There are no "facts", but just claims. Your demand that people shouldn't comment unless, effectively, they're a fan is simply outrageous and is the anti-HN. Someone donated lots of hours doesn't make their claims any more credible. tptacek is, and has always been, one of the worst trolls on HN. He has gathered such a herd of followers that his nonsense replies (instead of actually replying to a comment he simply invents a ludicrous strawman that he so confidently, tut tut, strikes down) get a pass, if not upvotes, despite a grotesque conflict of interest. It is perverse, and should be shameful for anyone who clicks that arrow, but that's the illusion that it's some sort of success club.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > The bigger figures become untouchable, above reproach, around here. There are some figures who are literally toxic, but because they've become a part of the core group they can get away with it. And if you doubt or question them, you must be a troll. Meatball wiki calls this "vested contributor". It is a problem. I sometimes post unacceptable but not flag worthy comments. (I welcome downvotes if you see me doing this - it makes me edit the post or withhold replies. Or email me if you don't yet have downvote privs). > It would be an interesting exercise to remove names from comments for a while and see how they do. I suspect the exercise would surprise some people. This is an excellent idea. I would happily use a plugin that provides this functionality. It's make my HN life better and easier. I suspect I would upvote more often.

Critiques have substance. Destructive criticism is just negativity for the sake of negativity. I do agree though, the bigger figures get their share of undeserved hate around here.

irrigation 11y ago

the bigger figures get their share of undeserved hate around here The bigger figures become untouchable, above reproach, around here. There are some figures who are literally toxic, but because they've become a part of the core group they can get away with it. And if you doubt or question them, you must be a troll. This is fairly normal group behavior, of course. It's a "group is its own worst enemy" behavior. It's how groups become insular and delusional and self-supporting. The identification and vilification of external enemies. Religious veneration. HN in a nutshell. It would be an interesting exercise to remove names from comments for a while and see how they do. I suspect the exercise would surprise some people. Further, some of the biggest names around here are masters of self-promotion. As much as we can cheer on "transparency", it isn't so selfless when it's used to farm SEO, or to fish for consulting engagements. I'm actually surprised BCC didn't go for much more simply for the pagerank value. This post has fallen off the front page, with which it will be dominated by the herd and I expect a rapid moderation influx that sees anything other that raw praise fade to transparency.

PopeOfNope 11y ago
You think you're making a logical argument, but all I hear is bitterness and rhetoric. Bitterness is toxic and it drips from all of your posts in this thread. Why? You could make the same points with kinder language and get farther with this crowd than you are right now. Also, if you have logical points to make, surely you can back them up with specific examples? I'd be interested in reading what comments other people have made that you think would have been downvoted had it come from somebody else. Now that I think about it, an HN alternative without karma where everyone is anonymous would be an interesting experiment.
- irrigation 11y ago
  This is exactly the sort of post that you find regarding quick fix solutions and Make Money Fast schemes. Don't believe in the magical cure-all nature of Trend Of The Week? So bitter and negative.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - PopeOfNope 11y ago
    So we're supposed to be skeptical of everyone's intentions but your own? Why should we believe you over anybody else who posts here? The fact you haven't supplied any evidence but instead rely entirely on manipulating emotions flags you for what you are: a troll.
    - dang 11y ago
      > what you are: a troll Please don't make threads worse by feeding comments you think are trolling. Instead, flag them and move on. To flag a comment, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag'.
      - irrigation 11y ago
        Your raw incompetence is truly boundless. The vast majority of my comments were positive until this story fell a number of pages back, when the shills appeared in full effect, you being their master. Your shadowban is pathetic. Flagging while leaving the utterly trollery of people like tptacek is...it is a marvel.
normloman 11y ago
Don't listen to the replies. You ain't bitter at all. In what planet does exposing obvious groupthink count as being toxic?
- irrigation 11y ago
  HN has been absolutely usurped to become the personal sales vehicles of a few people, and the raw gullibility of many in the crowd has reached incredible proportions. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9603840 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9603840 That comment was flagged (despite sitting at a positive score), and you likely can't see it. That it is flagged is ludicrous, and just demonstrates the circling of the wagons. Here was the actual comment- This is a recurring theme of these sorts of replies (along with cries of jealousy or ad hominem attacks by people circling the wagons). "Factual", when the things I am questioning are based upon no demonstrated facts at all. patio11 gave advice on consulting which, as a long time consultant -- rather successfully (but still not enough to start doling wisdom) -- I found completely at odds with the reality I've endured, but it's a big world so maybe I just fly in different circles. It was advice being conveyed to people looking to enter or already in the game, and is purportedly based upon real world success and feedback. My first suspicion is that it's a piece obviously intending to draw attention to his newest venture (Starfighter, just as so many prior pieces were driven to focus SEO and attention on BCC, though we've seen that the return on that was miserable for the time invested and opportunity lost). That's always a warning side -- people often tend to aggrandize when seeking attention and link juice (and to find pat, sure-fire success formulas, because easy solution posts do best), and coincidentally that piece was linked to far and wide for the extraordinary claims. The second is that it is building a reputation at the cost of just words, which you can see throughout this thread: "Well BCC [a project that has seen so little success most people would have abandoned it long ago] was just for fun. He's really a super successful consultant." Because, the story goes, he was picking and choosing among clients shoveling money at him. $30K per week? $40K? Why not $50K? Just keep those rates hidden and escalating, biding your time and soon enough the money truck starts dumping. First they were successful for being an expert at optimizing a business. Now they're a high flying, top tier consultant that was so successful they hung up the hat. Are those facts? The former we have empirical evidence to the contrary, and the latter is founded only in words. It does not matter how personally protective of him you may feel, this is being doled out as life proven advice, and it is critical that everyone, no matter how much they think someone is a part of the community, be critical and naturally skeptical. Advice founded in success needs to demonstrate that success, and there is just nothing there beyond hand waving. There are no "facts", but just claims. Your demand that people shouldn't comment unless, effectively, they're a fan is simply outrageous and is the anti-HN. Someone donated lots of hours doesn't make their claims any more credible. tptacek is, and has always been, one of the worst trolls on HN. He has gathered such a herd of followers that his nonsense replies (instead of actually replying to a comment he simply invents a ludicrous strawman that he so confidently, tut tut, strikes down) get a pass, if not upvotes, despite a grotesque conflict of interest. It is perverse, and should be shameful for anyone who clicks that arrow, but that's the illusion that it's some sort of success club.
DanBC 11y ago
> The bigger figures become untouchable, above reproach, around here. There are some figures who are literally toxic, but because they've become a part of the core group they can get away with it. And if you doubt or question them, you must be a troll. Meatball wiki calls this "vested contributor". It is a problem. I sometimes post unacceptable but not flag worthy comments. (I welcome downvotes if you see me doing this - it makes me edit the post or withhold replies. Or email me if you don't yet have downvote privs). > It would be an interesting exercise to remove names from comments for a while and see how they do. I suspect the exercise would surprise some people. This is an excellent idea. I would happily use a plugin that provides this functionality. It's make my HN life better and easier. I suspect I would upvote more often.