Hacker News Reader

Comment by _qulr | Hacker News Reader

The article is so vague that people can read anything they want into it, and judging from the comments here, they are. My question is, who is the target of the article, who is supposed to avoid commenting? Your coworkers? Your boss? Your paying customers? Your non-paying users? The media? Twitter/HN randos? All of the above?

If you're a maker, then you're making things for someone. If you're only making things for yourself, then of course nobody else has a right to comment. But if you're making things for other people, then it seems to me that those other people have the right, perhaps even the obligation, to comment on the product, right? The article verges on the parodic idea that no maker should ever be subject to any criticism. If that's not the author's intention, then the author ought to be clearer what is intended.

That's my drive-by comment.

View on HN

It seems clear to me those commenters are also in a position to do the work themselves. Maybe coworkers. That is very different from a programmer-user relationship that a lot of people are talking about here. Almost the opposite - complaints are valuable and fixes aren't.

Hmm, I got the notion that makers are welcome to comment on the works of other makers, but if you're _only commenting_ knock it off and go make something. It's different when you have experience making (or writing) something, and that experience makes feedback more useful and more actionable.

Who is a "maker" and who isn't? This seems like a false dichotomy. An enormous number of people on Earth are engaged in making things. And every maker of things is also a consumer of things.

Or is it that only makers of this particular thing are qualified to comment? But that would be a strange principle, because again, who are you making things for?

For example, you could comment on someone starting a garden without having tried to start one yourself. Or you could start a garden yourself and have lots of interesting takeaways and constructive feedback to share. Lots of people make things, sure, but just because I make a boat does not make me qualified to comment on bridge building, or garden making. So I would think someone who has relevant experience in making whatever the thing is would be a "maker" and other people would not. I don't think the audience of "who you're making things for" is nearly as relevant, because sometimes you make things for yourself, or your partner, or your friends, and sometimes those things are useful and more people want them. Discovering product demand is an iterative process. On the other hand, there are people who do not make things for themselves or anyone in need, or to address any need, so although they might have a lot to say it might not be all that helpful or relevant if they have not tried to build whatever it is the maker built, or something close to that.

Can we not pretend that we're talking about gardens and bridges, or that the article author is just making things for himself, his partner, and his friends? I really don't think these are useful analogies.

Who is commenting on gardens? Who is commenting on bridges? I mean, if a bridge collapses, then a lot of people will comment on it, deservedly so. "Yes, people died, but don't criticize, go off and make your own bridge!"

Yes but the article is not about crises and disasters... it's about people sharing their work with the world, and the observation that it's much easier to comment and criticize on something without knowing the difficulties in building or creating it than it is to actually set off and attempt to build the thing. What I got from the article was that if you have actually given it a shot your feedback is more valuable and you probably ought comment because you'll have something to say that will help the builder. Maybe we are looking at different uses of the term "comment." Yes, naturally anything anyone says in response or as a reaction is a "comment," but I think the author was coming from a place of sharing one's work on the internet, he pretty much said as much in the article.

> I think the author was coming from a place of sharing one's work on the internet, he pretty much said as much in the article.

Did he?

"I’ve mostly stopped sharing unsolicited “helpful” just-a-thoughts and comments at work. I save them for Twitter"

This is why I said it's not even clear what exactly the author is talking about. I actually have no idea, but everyone else seems to think they know, despite the fact that they have very different interpretations of what it is.

Yes, he did, in paragraph 2 under "Making is so much harder."

>At internet scale, simply by doing anything, you expose attackable surface area to furor you never imagined.

>Most people are shocked and drop out of making things, preferring to stay safe.

>Those who make it through often look like startup founders, battle-scarred and tone-deaf from being attacked for so many years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com