zlacker

>>pg+(OP)
I wanted to see if there had been any visible decrease in quality. Doesn't look like it. There's surprisingly little difference between this and the regular frontpage.

>>pg+e
I think it's the recent comments - their shallow attacks reduce the perceived quality of the submissions.

Recent comments tend not to collaborate with the article - they aren't filling in gaps, adding further instances, extending the concept; discussing where the article is clear or unclear; correct or incorrect. And they are neither respectful nor kindly. They don't build on, or with, the article to create something better.

Instead, comments compete with the article - they find spelling errors, logic errors, or denounce the article in a shallow, general, global and vague way, often labeling it with connotational language. They aren't trying to build value, but destroy it.

The only criticism I enjoy reading is what you'd get from a kind and wise mentor. If someone hates an article, I'd prefer it if they just ignored it.

But I can't make them do that - so, recently I've taken to ignoring the comments here, and going direct to the article to make up my own mind.

>>10ren+xf
I think I have recently been wrongly profiled by someone who shares this view. I mentioned that certain patterns of behavior in internet consumers resemble those encountered in dating sites and used car dealerships. I know there have been economic studies of this. (Couldn't find it with Google, though.) However, I was attacked as if I was merely trying to associate Apple Computer with dating sites and used car salesmen.

In my two decades online, I've found that those who attack others to try and "clean up" a news group actually end up trashing it with noise and junk. (In fact, I have been guilty of this as well.) Much better for everyone to act respectfully.

>>stcred+9T
I just found the comment you probably mean: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=607638

I read it as you adding something to the discussion.

But I have noticed that certain subjects tend to rile people up - I think it's to do with categorizing people, almost like an -ism (as in racism or sexism). PC/mac is one of these; but there's also vi/emacs, Windows/Linux, programming languages, and even Holden/Ford (apparently). The so-called religious wars, that tend to bring out emotions. Probably because people identify with the product, and so any perceived slight is taken as a personal attack, therefore there's a wish to defend against it or to counter-attack, grabbing whatever means are available.

I've noticed that I've strayed into the area myself: without realizing it, I've used Mac/PC to make a point (about integrated hardware/software vs. modular components - the former is needed in the earlier years. It's an idea from Clayton Christianson, of the innovator's dilemma fame.) I wasn't attacked, but I got some odd responses... eventually I realized that it's just a touchy subject. Like sex, religion and politics.

I think you might have caused offense with the earlier part of your comment, where you seem to be implying that Mac purchasers lack "the wherewithal to tell the difference." I can see that causing offense, even though you are a Mac user yourself, and you intended it in a neutral way. And that's coming from me, who's not a Mac user.

I agree that the denotation of the statement is neutral - the same statement is true of evaluating professional work in general: dentists, surgeons, barristers, plumbers, car repairers, etc... and of course coding (for the non-coder.) How do you know if you are being ripped off? You don't.