I don't agree with you, but I am happy someone provided reasons for what this is happening.
My main problem with the summaries (I have more than one but let me be brief ;) is this: Imagine if I replied to your comment with this:
Summary: Sometimes it's useful.
This is what you've said, but you provided one counter-argument to my comment, one personal explanation, one extrapolation on what I've said.
Then you expanded your first point, provided an example of recent problems on HN and how the summary might be a solution, then you've answered my question.
So, you see, you wrote something with an introduction, expanded on the premises, and a conclusion. You didn't just say "sometimes they're useful".
This is awesome, it's content. This is a quality conversation.
By reading one-liners, or depending on them to see if you're going to read the article, you're missing all the little stuff that separates the good from the bad.
For example, the summary that I replied on this thread "gets" that an advice on the interview is about how work there is done, but it completely misses the bigger point, made on the last paragraph. The article isn't really only about interview, but life in general. It's about reading between the lines, about empathy and communication.
By the way, I've flagged the article based on this. The main idea is solid (you've got to learn how to read people) but the execution was flawed. Besides, it's off-topic IMHO.
And this means we already have tools to deal with the quality of articles here. Votes and flags. One line summaries don't give enough context.
Besides, if you're inclined to believe in the summaries before reading the article, who can garantee that it reflects what the article is saying accurately?
Also, summaries add nothing to the discussion. Imagine loading this page and reading how I made coffe this morning. Comments waste very little screen space and time (by design) (ugh... cheap shot I know ;), but why would I want to read something that:
- Doesn't add content to the article;
- Doesn't start a discussion;
So why have a comment that isn't meant to foster conversation, to provide insights? Otherwise, after my coffe, I moved a candy out of the table because ants were all over it :p
By reading one-liners, or depending on them to see if you're going to read the article, you're missing all the little stuff that separates the good from the bad.
Yes. Welcome to the cruel world of information overload, where I don't have time to read 95% of the brilliantly crafted content that is being created on the Internet, to say nothing of the stupid stuff.
Yes, judging books by their cover blurbs and reviews is haphazard, even cruel. Yes, you miss out on a lot of good detail. Yes, it remains absolutely necessary.
I have to judge what to click on by: The title, a skim through the comments, and the link destination (which I actually find most significant -- I clicked through on this and read the real thing specifically because it had Powazek's URL on it, and his last article really hit home.)
Incidentally, "sometimes it's useful" is a terrible post because it has no content and is banal [1], not because it is short. There's a distinction between empty sentences and brief sentences! The summary we're all pointing fingers at had a lot of content, even if it wasn't anywhere near as pleasureable as the actual article.
Meanwhile, a parenthetical note: The flagging system is for things that are "spam or egregiously offtopic". And if you live in a happy land where you seriously believe that "how to avoid working in unacceptable situations" is egregiously offtopic for hackers, congratulations! I hope your amazing run of luck continues, for your sake. Because, in my world, Powazek's advice comes in handy on a monthly basis.
---
[1] Just about any comment on a site can be useful sometimes. Even "first post" is useful: It demonstrates that the comments are working and that the comment moderation is very sloppy.
Ok... but why are you being so ironic and offensive? Was I a jerk? I am being nice to you, and disagreeing in good terms. No need to treat me like that.
I was going to craft another response to you, but really, you're demotivating me with your choice of words. Welcome newbie to reality? Congratulations? My sake? Your world? What's up mf, can't we talk normally? At least agree that we disagree on these summaries?
Gee... cool down. If you like the summaries, upvote them... by the amount of positive votes they're getting lately, they seem to be pretty popular... but I was just trying to understand why it looks like they're here to stay and at the same time say why I don't like them...
Edit: I typed this reply before you added more text to yours, so it looked like all you were doing was mocking me :p
My apologies. I'm sure I did overreact. But when someone flags a submission that could well have been part of one's autobiography for arbitrary deletion as hopelessly offtopic it does feel rather like a slap in the face. This is presumably why the "flag" vote total is kept secret, and folks aren't encouraged to post replies talking about how or why they flagged something.
But it was almost certainly an innocent mistake (it's not as if the intended use of the "flag" button is known to anyone who hasn't read the entire guidelines page or been present during its invention) so I'm sorry that my reply came out as snippy as it did.
i don't understand the problem with one-line summaries. if you stop question them and pleading with people to remove them there wouldn't be this whole thread anyway.
also:
> "By the way, I've flagged the article based on this. The main idea is solid (you've got to learn how to read people) but the execution was flawed. Besides, it's off-topic IMHO."
weird. i appreciated the insight in this article, as well as the general brevity. is flagging the new down-voting? or am i missing the scope of what should be flagged? (i rarely downvote and have never flagged. i like to be inclusive. i also see the necessity of information overload handlers, so we might just want completely different systems).
[edit: eit. looks like the flag point was handled by mechanical_fish and inerte above. good work :-p]
My main problem with the summaries (I have more than one but let me be brief ;) is this: Imagine if I replied to your comment with this:
Summary: Sometimes it's useful.
This is what you've said, but you provided one counter-argument to my comment, one personal explanation, one extrapolation on what I've said.
Then you expanded your first point, provided an example of recent problems on HN and how the summary might be a solution, then you've answered my question.
So, you see, you wrote something with an introduction, expanded on the premises, and a conclusion. You didn't just say "sometimes they're useful".
This is awesome, it's content. This is a quality conversation.
By reading one-liners, or depending on them to see if you're going to read the article, you're missing all the little stuff that separates the good from the bad.
For example, the summary that I replied on this thread "gets" that an advice on the interview is about how work there is done, but it completely misses the bigger point, made on the last paragraph. The article isn't really only about interview, but life in general. It's about reading between the lines, about empathy and communication.
By the way, I've flagged the article based on this. The main idea is solid (you've got to learn how to read people) but the execution was flawed. Besides, it's off-topic IMHO.
And this means we already have tools to deal with the quality of articles here. Votes and flags. One line summaries don't give enough context.
Besides, if you're inclined to believe in the summaries before reading the article, who can garantee that it reflects what the article is saying accurately?
Also, summaries add nothing to the discussion. Imagine loading this page and reading how I made coffe this morning. Comments waste very little screen space and time (by design) (ugh... cheap shot I know ;), but why would I want to read something that:
- Doesn't add content to the article; - Doesn't start a discussion;
So why have a comment that isn't meant to foster conversation, to provide insights? Otherwise, after my coffe, I moved a candy out of the table because ants were all over it :p