undefined

points

[-]

Among other places sure, I pivoted off the Show HN strictly, but it's fair for you to raise this given your thread was inspiration.

Posting something to SHOW people without considering how people may want or need what you're showing is just bad etiquette anywhere frankly. If you're building for yourself that's great, maybe qualify it in your post because otherwise it's free game to judge poorly. Spam is inherently unwanted content, you don't get to decide what is wanted content the collective community does.

It's something many of us have learned building software for years that all the new people building are going to figure out for themselves. Just because you can build it doesn't mean anyone will care if you're trying to show it off and with the flood of new apps, it's fair game to discuss.

Edit: all of us -> many of us on the last paragraph

by anukin15 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

What’s wrong with just posting and then taking the feedback and improving? Why is taste or for that matter any arbitrarily decided “in thing” necessary for posting in show hn? Who is the arbitrator here?

by tptacek6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

This is exactly the sentiment I detected in the previous thread, where a small group of people seem to have decided what the etiquette of daring to post a Show HN is. I'm not sure I remember being consulted on whether you should be keeping these gates for the rest of us. My reaction is the same as it was when people tried to argue Show HN was only for open-source software: says you.

by ianbutler6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I'm not gate keeping anything, to do that I would have to make specific statements beyond "consider other people when you post something"

Right and my point is you (or i) will never be consulted, it happens emergently through community dynamics. No one sat in a group and decided this, Show HN in particular has always been selective. Different things are interesting to different sub groups and they select for different things. Show HN is not homogenous. My argument is not to not post, it's to post knowing who you hope to reach and why it would matter to them, don't just post to post, that is a large part of taste to me.

by XenophileJKO3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Shaming, ridiculing. People that dare to create something you don't like. Maybe the right answer is if you don't like what people are sharing that they made.. YOU make something and share it and lead by example instead of complaining.

by ianbutler3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

First I never did that.

Second, I've founded several companies, had customers, put out products to be judged by the market and raised capital. I'm more than qualified to put out an opinion here. Been there done that.

by isicjsjcu3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

[dead]

by internet20005 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

> I'm not gate keeping anything,

Might be unintentional then, but the language in your post comes across as a textbook case of gatekeeping.

by sarchertech3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think society could benefit from a little more gate keeping these days. IMO, we’ve swung way too far to the other direction. We all need a little friction and constraint.

Gate keeping isn’t inherently good, but I think Trump is essentially the right wing outcome of zero gate keeping.

by ianbutler4 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I honestly tried to not inject my own standards into this and tried to stick around dynamics as much as possible. I think you shouldn't post to post, but if you've considered your audience and thought about something outside of yourself as to why someone may like this, earnestly, and not just kidding yourself, you are acting in good faith imo.

Similarly, I should have done more in the post to steer people way from the perception I'm shitting on them for building for themselves, that's great I have plenty of personal projects running at home that are just for me, if I ever decided to share them out I'd work to make sure its ready and valuable for people to receive.

by tptacek4 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The way you're expressing it, it sounds like you simply believe your own standards are representative of what everyone else's are. I disagree, for whatever that's worth.

by ianbutler3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

My standards aren't expressed in the post at all is what I try to keep getting across. I'm describing an objective fact of social dynamics.

"Things that don't consider their audience get ignored or are perceived poorly."

The only thing I stated was a simple thing which is almost immovable fact at this point, that someone posting should be considering that.

My opinions are actually a lot stronger than anything I've written here and if it was about them the post would have been radically different.

by tptacek3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Always a helpful discussion strategy, just declare whatever you said to be an "objective" or "immovable" fact. I'm not sure there's much for either of us to gain by continuing. Anyways: now you know how I, and at least one other person I guess, read what you wrote.

by ianbutler3 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> I'm not sure there's much for either of us to gain by continuing.

A feeling of self righteous indignation? (I joke)

Anyway, I appreciate your take, but yes I think we just take fully different sides. I really am having a hard time seeing it from your perspective, but I respect that we attempted to get through to each other. Cheers.