Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrsig | Hacker News Reader

Given the text of that first post, it's no wonder why there's been silence. What do you even do with that?

It gives no details about why whatever the new feature is bad, or what was good about the prior behavior. It's presumptive, antagonistic, and doesn't leave any room for discussion.

It really seems like OP is hoping that dogpiling on the issue will bring about positive change.

View on HN

The first post is exactly what people see and feel. It is the enshittification of GitHub and needs no lengthy explanations [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/dmitriid/status/1700908879486345622?s=20

Lol, finally someone else who hates relative timestamps.

One year ago... What does that mean? September 11th, 2022? Or a wider range?

It's especially bad for the history/commit view. "We had an incident in a large repo with multiple committers, let's narrow it down to a specific commit..."

The departure from precise timestamps in UIs is unpleasant. It's not just github, gitlab does it as well.

I also prefer precise time stamps but am okay with time_ago_in_words as long as the full time stamp is available on hoverover

OP isn't trying to provide constructive feedback, just an ultimatum. https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/66188#discussi...

>It gives no details about why whatever the new feature is bad, or what was good about the prior behavior.

Isn't that the job of the PMs at Github and not the users saying they don't like the new experience?

Sure, but if you're looking to have a dialog with the corporation about it, bringing specific actionable feedback is going to be met better than petulant foot stomping.

Honey vs vinegar, and all.

The actionable feedback is that the old option should still stay available next to the new one.

If the corporation cared, it wouldn't have introduced the algorithmic feed with little to no usable info in the first place.

If the corporation doesn't care, why are you spending energy complaining about it?

Are you hoping to enact change, or are you just complaining?

Sometimes corporations budge due to outcry (or regulations [1]).

GitHub's "designers" and PMs knew exactly what they were doing and they knew exactly what would happen. They still went ahead with it. No idea why you feel the need to defend them.

[1] The algorithmic feed runs afoul of upcoming EU regulations regarding this crap

I'm not defending them, I'm being critical of the approach taken by the OP, because of the clear attempt to rile people into picking up their pitchforks.

I'd rather not be bothered by this at all and just move on, but it's something I care about - and hundreds of others with me.

It's ok that you don't care about this, so feel free to put your pitchfork down.

In my experience corporations respond more often to bad publicity than they do to actionable feedback in terms of larger changes like this. One big reason is that often they already got that actionable feedback during the planning of this project but decided the business upside was worth it. Bad publicity cuts into the business upside which can change their value calculation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com