
Why I’m helping startup founders - ColinWright
http://joel.is/post/28198804700/why-im-helping-startup-founders
======
notbitter
You are actually hurting startup founders by farting out this HN-optimized
fluff of platitudes and having your co-founder vote it up. Please stop it.

~~~
ColinWright
Thanks for your comment:

    
    
      > You are actually hurting startup founders by farting
      > out this HN-optimized fluff of platitudes and having
      > your co-founder vote it up. Please stop it.
      > -- notbitter
    

As you might imagine, I don't agree with it. More, I don't actually understand
what you're really trying to say. I gather you don't like it, and I do
understand that some people will have different opinions to mine, but if you
don't explain clearly then I really don't have a chance to learn from you.

So, if you don't mind, could you expand on your comment and make your
arguments clearer?

I'm also interested in what seems to be some sort of accusation. In
particular, you say:

    
    
      > ... having your co-founder vote it up.
    

I didn't write it, and I am not a co-founder of the person who did, so I'd be
interested to learn who you think is a co-founder of whom. Otherwise this
smells of an accusation of dishonesty.

I look forward to your reply.

Oh, and I just thought I'd add, I haven't downvoted you, not least because I
can't. HN doesn't allow downvoting of replies to one's own submissions or
comments

~~~
notbitter
Thanks for your passive-aggressive reply. My comment was directed at the
author, not at you. I don't know what if any connection you have to the
author.

However, you should note the content-free enthusiastic comment by LeonW,
posted right after you submitted the article, in which he does not mention
that he is the author's co-founder. You might also have noticed that many
articles from this blog are similar: a catchy headline, a bunch of vague
inspirational words on an uncontroversial subject, a token link to the
conversion funnel, and a surprisingly high rank on the HN front page.

If you aren't even slightly suspicious that this article is 99% conversion
fodder and maybe 1% altruism, I am not going to be able to explain it to you.

~~~
ColinWright

      > Thanks for your passive-aggressive reply.
    

Hmm. My reply was absolutely genuine. You appear to be ascribing to me motives
that don't exist. I honestly wanted to know the reasoning or beliefs
underlying your comment, because I honestly didn't understand why you were
calling it a "fluff of platitudes". I honestly wanted to know why you believe
that this item is "actually hurting startup founders." That's why I asked for
more information, and in particular, I asked for more details of why you said
what you said, before I made any kind of judgement about your motives.

So thank you for your reply, I have found it interesting and enlightening. And
believe it or not, I'm being genuine when I say that.

    
    
      > My comment was directed at the author, not at you.
    

That wasn't clear. It often appears to me on HN that people direct comments at
the submitter of an item, rather than at the author. After all, the author
might not read HN. Thank you for your clarification.

    
    
      > I don't know what if any connection you have to the author.
    

For reference, none.

    
    
      > However, you should note the content-free enthusiastic comment
      > by LeonW, posted right after you submitted the article, in which
      > he does not mention that he is the author's co-founder.
    

Noted. Personally, I've always pretty much ignored content-free, enthusiastic
comments, or even down-voted and in some cases flagged them. I do that without
wondering whether people have connections, or are co-founders, or whatever,
simply because I tend to act on the content (or lack thereof) rather than
perceived, inferred, or supposed connections or motives. That's just me - I
don't look for conspiracies.

    
    
      > You might also have noticed that many articles from this blog are
      > similar: a catchy headline, a bunch of vague inspirational words
      > on an uncontroversial subject, a token link to the conversion
      > funnel, and a surprisingly high rank on the HN front page.
    

So, you obviously think the high rank is undeserved. Fair enough - why do you
think that might be the case? I know that there is a reasonably effective
voting-ring detector on HN (at times possibly too aggressive) so it doesn't
seem likely to me that it's just the author getting lots of cronies to upvote
it. Do you think the HN audience is insufficiently critical?

One reason I ask is this: for a slightly different context, I could've written
this article and I would have meant every word of it. I'm active in certain
circles, and I frequently mentor and give time and advice with absolutely no
expectation of return or reward. The reason? Pretty much exactly as listed in
this item. That's why it resonated with me, and that's why I submitted it -
I'd like to see more people give back to their communities, whatever
communities they may be.

As it happens I do get benefits in return, largely in line with those listed
in the item. It's not why I do it, it's not why I did it in the first place,
and it's not why I'll continue to do it. In truth, I think it's important on
some level, and I think it's right.

    
    
      > If you aren't even slightly suspicious that this article is
      > 99% conversion fodder and maybe 1% altruism, I am not going
      > to be able to explain it to you.
    

Well, I read things to gain insight, learn stuff, and with any luck, to become
better at what I choose to do. Sometimes I find real truths in unlikely
places.

But here's one thing I've found. For me, evaluating things critically for what
they are, and not for where I think they come from, or why I think they've
been produced, and independently of any real or assumed motives on the part of
the author, works for me. After all, the overwhelming majority of material on
the web has some motivation behind it, and I deal with that by treating
everything on its merits.

It's taken me some time to compose this reply. I hope you find it an
interesting insight into a point of view other than your own. No doubt we
won't agree, but I've learned something from you, and I hope this affords you
the same opportunity.

~~~
notbitter
If you avoid the questions "why was this written" and "how did it get from the
author to my eyeballs" you will never develop a working bullshit detector.

------
polyfractal
I agree with the sentiment of trying to help other people _especially when you
are small_. I find these kinds of posts the most interesting, since they apply
the most directly to my situations.

Reading about scaling to millions or closing a big deal is interesting, but
reading about "boots on the ground" this is how I got my first 100 customers
is actionable information.

------
LeonW
This is a great post, Ziglar's "You will get everything you want in life by
helping others get what they want" comes to mind. Simply taking time out every
day to help others on a consistent basis can go very far, the fact that this
will prepare you to be one of the best startup advisors or angel investors
comes without doubt, great inspiration!

------
archildress
Fantastic article Joel - I shot you an email.

------
heretohelp
notbitter is right, this stuff is cancer.

