Comment by cat9
10 years ago
"A workaround exists, it's the user's fault for not knowing it" is terrible interaction design.
Having links on the site fail arbitrarily devalues the entire page. Users aren't stopping and thinking "hey, is clicking this link going to waste my time?" - which results in the entire system being perceived as less reliable and trustworthy.
I agree that such discussions are off-topic, but is there a better way to handle these articles than "RTFM, noob"?
You're quoting things I didn't say. The snark-amplification mechanism of putting the most uncharitable spin you can possibly think of on someone's remarks is one of the worsts you can do in comments here. I spend a lot of time asking users not to do it to other users.
Of course the paywalls suck. Is there any user who has to deal with more of these annoyances than we ourselves do? There can't be many.
The question is the lesser of two evils. Anyone who doesn't get what a disaster it would be for HN to lose the NYT, WSJ, Economist, and New Yorker doesn't get HN in the first place.
I think you're over inflating the value of articles that a bunch of people can't read. If this policy is even half consistent, nobody will be able to complain when there are things posted that there is absolutely no workaround for other than paying (or having someone copy and repost). Postings like that absolutely deserve complaint IMO because it punishes those without privilege.
> the value of articles that a bunch of people can't read
"Paywalls with workarounds" means people can read them. Obviously we care about that—we've explicitly let everyone know that users are welcome to help each other do so.
Re value, people disagree about value judgments but someone has to make the call, and it's the same now as it has always been.
I can at least tell you what it's based on: HN wants to maximize the quality of the articles on the front page and the quality of the comments in the threads. Sites like the NYT and the New Yorker increase the former. Repetitive complaining about paywalls reduces the latter. Hence the above.
4 replies →
Thanks for the ad hominem response, it really reminds me what's great about this site.
Given that you did put in quotes things that dang didn't say, it sure seemed like dang was describing your actual actions, not saying anything about you or your intentions. (Well, maybe 'snark amplification'.)
I don't think it was ad hominem, but it's possible that I misinterpreted your comment as snarkier than you meant it. If so, I'm sorry.
2 replies →