I work for IPinfo. We really would appreciate more constructive feedback on how to present data driven stories that is approachable to everyone.
> I stopped reading after the first graphic.
Now, let's see what we had before the first graphic.
1st Paragraph: Explains what BGP is.
2nd Paragraph: Tells a story about the Pakistani ASN accidental BGP hijack. A story which is known in the network engineering community, but not by most people.
3rd Paragraph: Introduces RPKI.
4th Paragraph: Summary states that builds the foundation of the article.
Then the first graphic shows the RPKI validation. That is all.
How would you structure the blog post about RPKI adoption, which is a data-driven technical story? I am not absolutely trying to be demeaning, but would you rather start from what BGP, RPKI, and those things are?
Then we have a series of community post around them:
Why do people feel the need to announce that they stopped reading?
Hey guys! I know there are many comments on this forum. Stopped reading this particular comment four words in. I knew the rest sucked & just wanted you to know that
Yeah effective at creating irrelevant bikeshedding arguments and destroy any good will and good faith in the underlying project.
How do you measure its effectiveness in other areas — presumably you thought it would make the other person write all copy and design by hand or something? Did you follow a number of people around and see that they changed their ways and posted hand-designed websites from then on? Or is the claim about being “surprsingly effective” just rhetoric based on wishful thinking and at most anecdotal evidence?
(And btw how is using a template, stock media, or an open source library not a similar form of copout? I could shame people for using a template that’s been overused).
I for one am totally okay with documentation or even front-facing product sites being obviously done with AI. I would rather it be obvious than shame people into trying to make it look organic and fool us, or enter some uncanny valley. Generating AI content at scale is fine as long as you don’t lie about it and pass it off as being done by hand. If shaming people would be “surprisingly effective” at causing them to try to make their AI-generated stuff look more like it was done by hand, would actually be a huge net negative for me. Consider the effect your shaming is actually likely to have, even if it accomplished something!
I work for IPinfo. We really would appreciate more constructive feedback on how to present data driven stories that is approachable to everyone.
> I stopped reading after the first graphic.
Now, let's see what we had before the first graphic.
1st Paragraph: Explains what BGP is.
2nd Paragraph: Tells a story about the Pakistani ASN accidental BGP hijack. A story which is known in the network engineering community, but not by most people.
3rd Paragraph: Introduces RPKI.
4th Paragraph: Summary states that builds the foundation of the article.
Then the first graphic shows the RPKI validation. That is all.
How would you structure the blog post about RPKI adoption, which is a data-driven technical story? I am not absolutely trying to be demeaning, but would you rather start from what BGP, RPKI, and those things are?
Then we have a series of community post around them:
- https://shubhamjain.neocities.org/bgp-explainer (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED)
- https://community.ipinfo.io/t/internet-from-scratch-in-10-sl...
- https://community.ipinfo.io/t/how-your-internet-traffic-actu...
- https://community.ipinfo.io/t/understanding-an-asn-page-peer...
Why do people feel the need to announce that they stopped reading?
Hey guys! I know there are many comments on this forum. Stopped reading this particular comment four words in. I knew the rest sucked & just wanted you to know that
It's a feedback for whoever was responsible for publishing this article.
Explicit and vocal pushback of unwanted practices is surprisingly effective.
Yeah effective at creating irrelevant bikeshedding arguments and destroy any good will and good faith in the underlying project.
How do you measure its effectiveness in other areas — presumably you thought it would make the other person write all copy and design by hand or something? Did you follow a number of people around and see that they changed their ways and posted hand-designed websites from then on? Or is the claim about being “surprsingly effective” just rhetoric based on wishful thinking and at most anecdotal evidence?
(And btw how is using a template, stock media, or an open source library not a similar form of copout? I could shame people for using a template that’s been overused).
I for one am totally okay with documentation or even front-facing product sites being obviously done with AI. I would rather it be obvious than shame people into trying to make it look organic and fool us, or enter some uncanny valley. Generating AI content at scale is fine as long as you don’t lie about it and pass it off as being done by hand. If shaming people would be “surprisingly effective” at causing them to try to make their AI-generated stuff look more like it was done by hand, would actually be a huge net negative for me. Consider the effect your shaming is actually likely to have, even if it accomplished something!