Honestly, I didn't find the feedback that terrible--I'm somewhat new here, but if you want carebears you should be over at reddit. I appreciate having a community honest enough to say what it thinks. I'm not sure what your other datapoints are, though?
For what it's worth, I thought it was an interesting and refreshing design proposal, though I did have issues with the way they chose to render logos and use screenspace--it was a bit too kitschy in its minimalism.
I agree. The main factor should be whether it's constructive criticism or not. In the case of the Wikipedia redesign thing, the tone of some of the comments might be a bit harsh but they were mostly insightful.
This is the internet, it's how it works, it's how it worked since at least Usenet (and probably before, but I can't testify of that). The social norm is different than regular "face to face" conversation.
It's harsher, but it's also often more honest I think.
This is the internet, it's how it works, it's how it worked since at least Usenet (and probably before, but I can't testify of that). The social norm is different than regular "face to face" conversation.
It's harsher, but it's also often more honest I think.
That's exactly what PG intended HN not to be. It's meant to be different, nicer, better thought out. If it devolves to a common web message board, we lose what makes it special. Read this, if you haven't before. Especially the last paragraph:
My impression is that HN is generally friendlier and more professional than Reddit, not harsher. You may want to dig a little deeper into Reddit; there's a lot of behavior on there that wouldn't fly here.
For what it's worth, I thought it was an interesting and refreshing design proposal, though I did have issues with the way they chose to render logos and use screenspace--it was a bit too kitschy in its minimalism.