I think we all owe you a great deal of thanks for HN, and I certainly think that we may not share this sentiment enough. Thank you, Mr. Graham. Simplicity in design truly is elegance, and I feel that--sometimes--too much flashy Web 2.0-related cruft tends to distract from the content (as the submitter points out). Certainly the Twitters and Facebooks of today and tomorrow have their uses, but I'm not so sure it's a good thing for society at large that we're moving toward content consumption limited to 140 characters. Worse, when one is so distracted by the interface of a site like Digg--as the submitter mentioned with regards to votes and such--does the visitor cross a dangerous threshold between actually reading/enjoying the content or does it spiral downwards into some sort of meta-evaluation for pseudo-rewards instead of a truly rewarding and educational experience? Me, I think I'll stay here. I don't read news to be entertained.
For me, reading HN truly is a great joy to experience, and I know a great deal of that is in the community you have created. Whenever I click on "comments" from an article, I've grown to expect that I'm going to read through a meaningful chain of conversations and am far less likely to encounter something unpleasant. Aesthetics aside (and these certainly play a significant part of why I like HN--the simplicity is an amazing breath of fresh air), one of the the more qualitative reasons I find HN so much more appealing is the community. It has been my experience that comments generally don't devolve into flamewars, and it is delightful to see that disagreements here remain respectful and substantive. Perhaps part of this is precisely because of the simplicity: Those who come here expecting to be entertained go elsewhere; those who come here to browse meaningful submissions stay and contribute.
I was (and still am, I suppose) a long time reader of Slashdot, but I could never quite get interested in Digg and its kin; they're all effectively modern tabloids with over-sensationalized submissions (this includes Slashdot). HN is an altogether different beast, and it wasn't until about a year ago when a friend of mine directed me to something posted here. I was greatly astounded at the time that, in 2008-2009, there would exist a site that doesn't hide itself behind flashy UIs and simply delivers raw content, bottled at the source. What a breath of fresh air! Make no mistake about it: HN is deceptive. What it might lack in fanciful (and, IMO, obnoxious) features, it more than makes up for in its submissions. When I come here, I know that I'll immediately have access to meaningful content--I won't be distracted by fluff.
My only regret with regards to HN is that I didn't seen the site sooner!
Once again, thank you Mr. Graham.
-- A short-time reader of HN who truly wishes he'd experienced it much earlier on!
What went through my mind as I read the submission and subsequently decided to write my own post was the realization of how much easier it is to say "this sucks, I hate it" than it is to say "thank you, I appreciate it." I also think it's important to enumerate what I happen to like about something, because I think it's important to encourage it.
Still, it's unfortunate that explaining why one happens to appreciate something like HN is considered "ass kissing" these days. My post wouldn't read any different even if Mr. Graham were someone completely different. I appreciate HN for what it is.
Posts like yours, sadly, give me pause for thought that perhaps I jumped the gun too early, but then I am reminded that certain subsets of the community generally frown upon verbose thank yous.
I'll be more cautious in the future with regards to my praise. Thanks for correcting me.
Comments
Mr. Graham,
I think we all owe you a great deal of thanks for HN, and I certainly think that we may not share this sentiment enough. Thank you, Mr. Graham. Simplicity in design truly is elegance, and I feel that--sometimes--too much flashy Web 2.0-related cruft tends to distract from the content (as the submitter points out). Certainly the Twitters and Facebooks of today and tomorrow have their uses, but I'm not so sure it's a good thing for society at large that we're moving toward content consumption limited to 140 characters. Worse, when one is so distracted by the interface of a site like Digg--as the submitter mentioned with regards to votes and such--does the visitor cross a dangerous threshold between actually reading/enjoying the content or does it spiral downwards into some sort of meta-evaluation for pseudo-rewards instead of a truly rewarding and educational experience? Me, I think I'll stay here. I don't read news to be entertained.
For me, reading HN truly is a great joy to experience, and I know a great deal of that is in the community you have created. Whenever I click on "comments" from an article, I've grown to expect that I'm going to read through a meaningful chain of conversations and am far less likely to encounter something unpleasant. Aesthetics aside (and these certainly play a significant part of why I like HN--the simplicity is an amazing breath of fresh air), one of the the more qualitative reasons I find HN so much more appealing is the community. It has been my experience that comments generally don't devolve into flamewars, and it is delightful to see that disagreements here remain respectful and substantive. Perhaps part of this is precisely because of the simplicity: Those who come here expecting to be entertained go elsewhere; those who come here to browse meaningful submissions stay and contribute.
I was (and still am, I suppose) a long time reader of Slashdot, but I could never quite get interested in Digg and its kin; they're all effectively modern tabloids with over-sensationalized submissions (this includes Slashdot). HN is an altogether different beast, and it wasn't until about a year ago when a friend of mine directed me to something posted here. I was greatly astounded at the time that, in 2008-2009, there would exist a site that doesn't hide itself behind flashy UIs and simply delivers raw content, bottled at the source. What a breath of fresh air! Make no mistake about it: HN is deceptive. What it might lack in fanciful (and, IMO, obnoxious) features, it more than makes up for in its submissions. When I come here, I know that I'll immediately have access to meaningful content--I won't be distracted by fluff.
My only regret with regards to HN is that I didn't seen the site sooner!
Once again, thank you Mr. Graham.
-- A short-time reader of HN who truly wishes he'd experienced it much earlier on!
Oh please, stop the ass kissing already. A simple 'Thank you' would suffice.
Ha! I chuckled because I assumed he was making good-natured meta-humor about the rising levels of PG appreciation going on...
I guess what I like about HN is the high expectations it allows us to keep.
I wish I were that clever. Unfortunately, I'm too honest to be clever. ;)
What went through my mind as I read the submission and subsequently decided to write my own post was the realization of how much easier it is to say "this sucks, I hate it" than it is to say "thank you, I appreciate it." I also think it's important to enumerate what I happen to like about something, because I think it's important to encourage it.
Still, it's unfortunate that explaining why one happens to appreciate something like HN is considered "ass kissing" these days. My post wouldn't read any different even if Mr. Graham were someone completely different. I appreciate HN for what it is.
Posts like yours, sadly, give me pause for thought that perhaps I jumped the gun too early, but then I am reminded that certain subsets of the community generally frown upon verbose thank yous.
I'll be more cautious in the future with regards to my praise. Thanks for correcting me.
I wish pg was my Dad.