Comment by lutusp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lutusp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Your suggestion to the previous author was to separate out 10 of the ideas, and to put the other 80 in a post-script or follow-up. But why?

So more people will read what he has to say. The basic principle of journalism, online and offline, is "don't bury your lead."

> Furthermore, the author's article stood out and was very effective, because, how many 90-point lists do you see posted to HN?

Yes, and how many atheists run for president? I suggest you're making a point other than the one you think.

> I'm sure you can see the irony in suggesting to a successful entrepreneur that they might have been more successful in some successful endeavor, had they instead done it like everyone else.

It seems you missed the irony that being a successful entrepreneur doesn't automatically make one a successful writer. I wasn't criticizing the OP's accomplishments, but his way of expressing them.

By your reasoning, Steve Jobs' business successes would have automatically made him a nice person to know, and/or a persuasive writer. But it seems those corollaries are false -- and the first I know to be false from personal experience.

It seems you missed the irony that being a successful entrepreneur doesn't automatically make one a successful writer. I wasn't criticizing the OP's accomplishments, but his way of expressing them. By your reasoning, Steve Jobs' business successes would have automatically made him a nice person to know, and/or a persuasive writer. But it seems those corollaries are false -- and the first I know to be false from personal experience.

That's not at all what I was saying. The irony I was referring to was that this particular author became a successful entrepreneur by doing things differently. They then wrote an article explaining the things they did differently to be successful. The article itself became quite successful (as seen by the support it received on HN, Twitter, etc), in part thanks to the fact that it too was different ("90 points" vs the hundred "top 10" posts I see in blogs every week). And then to get the suggestion that they could be more successful if they were to follow the trend that everyone else does, seems to miss the point entirely.

I was referring to the fact that the article was actually quite poetic in the way it described how to be successful by doing things differently, in a way that was quite different for such an article. The very thing that helped make this article successful was in how it was different than the mainstream top-10 articles.

The suggestion that it instead be formatted the same as every other article in order to be more successful, would have made it stand out less and be easily forgotten. In the author's and most readers' opinions, that suggestion would have likely made it less successful. And that is the definition of irony.

But he isn't trying to be a successful journalist/writer. He was offering advice to other entrepreneurs who would probably take his advice over a journalist's any day of the week.

Being persuasive comes in many forms. You can be a good writer or you can be successful, both of those things get you attention. Being successful might even be better since your words are backed with hard-earned credibility. There's a reason why all sports shows nearly always have a former player/coach as an analyst.

> But he isn't trying to be a successful journalist/writer. He was offering advice to other entrepreneurs who would probably take his advice over a journalist's any day of the week.

Yes, and in that case, he should have been open to the common-sense writing advice of a professional. But no, not so. Apparently he believed being a successful entrepreneur makes one successful at everything else by fiat.

> Being persuasive comes in many forms.

Not in writing. At risk of posing a tautology, persuasive writing depends, not on the writer or the topic, but on the writing.

> There's a reason why all sports shows nearly always have a former player/coach as an analyst.

That ought to have disqualified Ernest Hemingway from writing about bullfighting. But Hemingway could write.

> Being successful might even be better since your words are backed with hard-earned credibility.

Under those circumstances, with an assured audience, he should have had the courage to offer ten points rather than 90.

"I am sorry I have had to write you such a long letter, but I did not have time to write you a short one" -- Blaise Pascal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com