Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Aug 2012 00:54 UTC
Google This tweet from Tom Warren made me smile. So, it's 2012 and tablets are finally able to do what the Amiga did in 1985. Seems like a bit of a stretch to be excited about that, right? Sure, until I caught myself getting excited - only a bit, but still - by this piece of news. Update: removed me being an annoyed child.
Thread beginning with comment 529627
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Random idea
by WereCatf on Sat 4th Aug 2012 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Random idea"
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

Reading the links is expected on OSNews. This isn't Engadget. When a link is in a story, it's part of the story. Don't complain if you don't understand what a story is about if you only read half of it. That's no my fault - it's yours. I'm not going to spell everything out.


Don't be so hostile, not everything is meant as an insult or an attack on you. The fact is that many people just look at the title and the intro and then proceed to follow the comments -- something that I do, too -- for various reasons, so it might behoove to keep that in mind in the future, aye? Instead of only looking at the article as a whole why not also look at just the title and the intro as a separate entity and check that it conveys enough information about what's going on.

I am not complaining, don't really know about the other commenters, but there's no need to get terribly worked over my comment. I am actually fairly certain I would've made the same mistake, something that one should just take as a learning experience and move on; mistakes and failures and the acceptance of those is the way we grow and improve ourselves.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[7]: Random idea
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 4th Aug 2012 10:51 in reply to "RE[6]: Random idea"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The fact is that many people just look at the title and the intro and then proceed to follow the comments -- something that I do, too -- for various reasons, so it might behoove to keep that in mind in the future, aye? Instead of only looking at the article as a whole why not also look at just the title and the intro as a separate entity and check that it conveys enough information about what's going on.


The thing is - it does. However, if you don't click the links - which, on the web, are an integral part of reading - then my responsibilities really end. I'm willing to put some effort into making sure that those who only read the intros get everything, but when people aren't even going to click the links and want to have everything spelled out in the limited 5-6 lines of an intro, then I'm out. It's ridiculous to expect that of me.

It's basic netiquette to read the entire article before commenting. I'm already pretty cool and all by always making sure all the important links (to the actual news) are in the intro so people aren't forced to read my drivel, but when people aren't even willing to read the links in the first 5-6 lines (!) and just jump straight to commenting, I really have no sympathy if you misunderstood the article. That's not my fault - it's yours for not reading properly.

If you miss the first 15 minutes of a movie, you don't get to complain at the director that the movie sucked because you didn't understand it.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[8]: Random idea
by flake on Sat 4th Aug 2012 11:02 in reply to "RE[7]: Random idea"
flake Member since:
2012-08-04

We did read the entire article. We just didn't read every link. As I said before, if every person read every link in every (for example) Wikipedia article they read, they would never leave their computers.

It's not like you would have had to spend three paragraphs explaining something, it would have taken but seven words: "... tweet about multi-tasking on the Surface tablet ..."

Would you expect to have to read every source cited in an academic paper just to understand the paper itself? No. If you wanted more detail and explanation and data on the paper, you would dig into the sources. This is no different when writing on a blog or a news site.

Your condescending attitude is getting a bit offensive.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[8]: Random idea
by WereCatf on Sat 4th Aug 2012 11:04 in reply to "RE[7]: Random idea"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

The thing is - it does. However, if you don't click the links - which, on the web, are an integral part of reading - then my responsibilities really end. I'm willing to put some effort into making sure that those who only read the intros get everything, but when people aren't even going to click the links and want to have everything spelled out in the limited 5-6 lines of an intro, then I'm out. It's ridiculous to expect that of me.


The Tweet was literally 85 characters long. You're seriously complaining about people not bothering to check a link to a tweet when you couldn't bother to just add that tweet as-is?

If you miss the first 15 minutes of a movie, you don't get to complain at the director that the movie sucked because you didn't understand it.


85 characters. That's all I need to say. Alas, you've made your mind and my comment was only a suggestion, so I'll just leave this at that.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[8]: Random idea
by joshv on Wed 8th Aug 2012 18:53 in reply to "RE[7]: Random idea"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

Wow, the intro was very misleading, until I clicked the links.

That's a poor summary period. The links should expand on the summary - but the summary should be accurate and consistent with the links, on it's own.

Reply Parent Score: 2