It could be the case that 95% of the readers who encountered the original article on HN thought it was bunk, but didn't want to spend the time to correct it. Or maybe it's the reverse-- maybe 95% of us believed it was a brilliant invention. I can't think of a way to estimate which is true.
I personally suspected that something is likely to be wrong with that "solar battery tree", but didn't have time to dig deeper.
I quickly took a look into comments, didn't find any heavyweight names there, didn't find any solid comments and quit without upvoting the article:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902329
My comment was NOT about a solar battery tree, but a general philosophical statement about how we interpret and judge information.
The moment I start loving HN, I start seeing such Aspergeristic tendencies. So downvote me to hell, but I am stuck between people loving kittens & user-generated 'rage' comics, and between people cannot appreciate broad philosophical ideas.
PS: This comment does not have much to do with what the parent said, but a broader problem with HN. And somehow I think this too (like the orignal comment) will be misinterpreted and downvoted to oblivion.
Consider an alternative possibility, which I think is what actually happened: your comment was written in the context of a discussion about a solar tree, and the first sentence, which did not establish any broader philosophical context, was a statement that several people disagreed with. The remaining three sentences didn't make a coherent argument, at least that I can tell.
I don't think that's worthy of downvoting. Still, I think you might get more satisfaction from HN if you framed your arguments more clearly instead of blaming the readers for what you see as their Aspergistic tendencies.
I would agree with you, but the comments were initially upvoted a lot, which tells me some people got it. I think it's my mistake to write it without providing context in the first place. The comments probably made sense to some, but not most because I presumed too much prior knowledge. The comment assumed that every one had more than a cursory idea of peer review. I have worked with people who have published in the best of places (including the venerable Science) and still think that process in badly broken and flawed. And I have seen pretty bad stuff make through great journals. Now this experience is probably different from that of most HN readers, who would view peer review as a purely benign thing. I agree that I did not provide a good enough context to what I was saying.
Also to talk about 'Aspergistic tendencies', it's a negative term and I used it because I was irritated. But I would like any of you to please answer this. How should I have phrased the first line any other way, and not appear arrogant. 'We all' is a construction of language thing, to take all off you in the fold. And I think it was pretty obvious 'we all' did not mean literally all. And anyone engaging in a bit of second-order thought could have deciphered that. One can say that the problem is partially because many HN readers are not native English speakers, but I would say neither am I, and it's more of an attitude thing. Programming is almost completely literal, most life is not.
How should I have phrased the first line any other way, and not appear arrogant.
The original: "A bigger point here is how we all mistook the results."
Suggested revision: "It's odd that an article that now appears mistaken originally received over 600 upvotes. I wonder how many people would downvote it, given the chance."
Also to add to the earlier comment, the only reason I wrote the rant was that I care enough about HN. I am not looking for approval or karma- I knew what I meant and what I was saying. But you know how people get irritated by a stupid fanboyish comment here, and make it a point to downvote it. In the same vein I got irritated by people misunderstanding what I was saying, and wanted to do something about it.
Comments
You missed the point of what I am saying, if you are debating on this minutiae.
It could be the case that 95% of the readers who encountered the original article on HN thought it was bunk, but didn't want to spend the time to correct it. Or maybe it's the reverse-- maybe 95% of us believed it was a brilliant invention. I can't think of a way to estimate which is true.
I personally suspected that something is likely to be wrong with that "solar battery tree", but didn't have time to dig deeper. I quickly took a look into comments, didn't find any heavyweight names there, didn't find any solid comments and quit without upvoting the article: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2902329
Unfortunately 630 other people upvoted it.
I do upvote this "Debunk" article http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2906538
Important conclusion:
In news ranking I would clearly prefer to rely on subset of Hacker News readers. Not on the full set.
I actually would prefer not to see articles that are upvoted by the same people who upvoted junk science article.
My comment was NOT about a solar battery tree, but a general philosophical statement about how we interpret and judge information.
The moment I start loving HN, I start seeing such Aspergeristic tendencies. So downvote me to hell, but I am stuck between people loving kittens & user-generated 'rage' comics, and between people cannot appreciate broad philosophical ideas.
PS: This comment does not have much to do with what the parent said, but a broader problem with HN. And somehow I think this too (like the orignal comment) will be misinterpreted and downvoted to oblivion.
Consider an alternative possibility, which I think is what actually happened: your comment was written in the context of a discussion about a solar tree, and the first sentence, which did not establish any broader philosophical context, was a statement that several people disagreed with. The remaining three sentences didn't make a coherent argument, at least that I can tell.
I don't think that's worthy of downvoting. Still, I think you might get more satisfaction from HN if you framed your arguments more clearly instead of blaming the readers for what you see as their Aspergistic tendencies.
I would agree with you, but the comments were initially upvoted a lot, which tells me some people got it. I think it's my mistake to write it without providing context in the first place. The comments probably made sense to some, but not most because I presumed too much prior knowledge. The comment assumed that every one had more than a cursory idea of peer review. I have worked with people who have published in the best of places (including the venerable Science) and still think that process in badly broken and flawed. And I have seen pretty bad stuff make through great journals. Now this experience is probably different from that of most HN readers, who would view peer review as a purely benign thing. I agree that I did not provide a good enough context to what I was saying.
Also to talk about 'Aspergistic tendencies', it's a negative term and I used it because I was irritated. But I would like any of you to please answer this. How should I have phrased the first line any other way, and not appear arrogant. 'We all' is a construction of language thing, to take all off you in the fold. And I think it was pretty obvious 'we all' did not mean literally all. And anyone engaging in a bit of second-order thought could have deciphered that. One can say that the problem is partially because many HN readers are not native English speakers, but I would say neither am I, and it's more of an attitude thing. Programming is almost completely literal, most life is not.
Suggested revision: "It's odd that an article that now appears mistaken originally received over 600 upvotes. I wonder how many people would downvote it, given the chance."
Also to add to the earlier comment, the only reason I wrote the rant was that I care enough about HN. I am not looking for approval or karma- I knew what I meant and what I was saying. But you know how people get irritated by a stupid fanboyish comment here, and make it a point to downvote it. In the same vein I got irritated by people misunderstanding what I was saying, and wanted to do something about it.
Yes, but my comment was much more general than this particular event or invention. I only posted it because it seemed like a good context.