Comments on: Amateurism or Art?

By: Jake

Jake — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 05:46:12 +0000

I think there's room for all these opinions. You can usually tell how much someone knows about a topic pretty quickly. Sporting events on TV have a tried-and-true formula, expert+broadcaster, which usually works pretty well.

The barrier to entry in many cases of New Web is embarrassment by hordes of loud commenters, not that different from facing a bunch of angry fans I suppose.

By: Jake

Jake — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 05:35:17 +0000

Maybe, but if you have strict expectations for posting, why not use an invite-only group? There *isn't* any harm in allowing amateurs to contribute. If anything, wouldn't that improve the professional work by comparison?

If you don't want contributions from anyone, use a private group. New Web, ur doin it rong.

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:29:04 +0000

“What I don’t get is what the harm is in letting people see these professional and amateur photos in the same group?”
Depends on the group. If it is a professional group, and an amateur walks in voicing ill-informed opinions, then a “You don't fit in here” can be okay, or a 'Be quiet and you might learn something”.
If there are a stream of amateurs walking in, doing the same, ignoring 'hints' and FAQs, then someone is likely to snap and it may see an extreme over-reaction.

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 04:24:39 +0000

Tricky one. My Dad has been a Sports journalist for decades and freely admits he writes articles criticising sportsmen for performances he couldn't hope to get near. But he knows the topic from 'the bench' and has whinged about a news journalist who was supposed to be covering a boxing match and offering descriptions on the lines of “He's hitting him.” And don't get him started on 'feature writers'. On the flip side, you have talented sportsmen who can't string sentences together.
There's a lot of people who know Oracle. There's a lot of people who can write. There's a small overlap of people who and write about Oracle.

By: Jake

Jake — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 22:57:14 +0000

You're on fire today I guess if the bartender poured terrible drinks, I'd seek out another bar, but if I liked him/her, I might stick around for the conversation

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 19:03:13 +0000

Question, Grasshopper, should you stop drinking because you don't like the bartender or begin the search for another bar? Yes, grasshopper, I have chosen this analogy with the new web wisely.

By: Jake

Jake — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:21:10 +0000

I respect experts too. We should all have the chance to weigh a variety of analysis and art. Communication is sometimes lacking in experts, whether in writing or in interviews. I find that lends credence to the opinion in many cases; I guess I figure if some dude is a terrible interview s/he probably doesn't waste time on public speaking skills

By: jpiwowar

jpiwowar — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 04:22:04 +0000

Yay for amateurs! As someone with claims to many interests and to very few areas of expertise, I certainly prefer low barriers to participation. I also have greater respect for experts who invite people to draw their own conclusions instead of relying solely upon their expert pronouncements.

There are limits, though. In the journalism example, an analysis delivered by an expert with bare minimum writing skills may not be readable enough to actually add value. I guess that's the reason for ghost writers. Good writing is hard, and even competent writing takes practice.

By: Jake

Jake — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:09:04 +0000

Interesting point. I think it varies from publication to publication, but I agree that I'd rather read an expert's poorly written analysis than a great piece of writing with no substance.

By: andrejk

andrejk — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 12:01:05 +0000

The problem with journalists is that they are expert writers, but quite often not as knowledgeable about the field they're writing about. I rather read something written by an expert in their field, but and amateur writer, than the other way around.

By: chet

chet — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 07:02:39 +0000

“I like the approach taken though, i.e. out this dude as a complete tool to everyone.”

Exactly. Self-policing. Perfection.

By: Jake

Jake — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 07:02:19 +0000

+1, I like choice, even if it's sometimes not so good. At least I have options, right? Yeah, some people will be jerks, but you should expect that. Otherwise, you fail at interwebs.

By: Jake

Jake — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 07:00:29 +0000

+1 for Threadless, that would *rock*.

The thing about New Web is you're going to get people like "Heretic" who hate you. If you can't handle the hate, you're not ready, Grasshopper. That's the negative side-effect of allowing everyone access to publish.

I like the approach taken though, i.e. out this dude as a complete tool to everyone.

By: chet

chet — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 05:09:50 +0000

Fuck the elite.

How's that?

If they are so elite then, like you said, they have nothing to worry about.

For me database dev and baseball. Those are 2 things I know pretty well. I can watch you throw a baseball and give you a rough idea of if you are any good or not. (David Eckstein is excluded from that list though.) It doesn't mean I think less of them.

Similarly, I can look at someone's code and give you a rough idea of where they stand technically. Does it mean I'll be a dick like "Heretic?" No, I would try to help (if they wanted it...sometimes you run into an evil person).

Those that know can decide for themselves. I want the noise...I'll filter it as I see fit.

By: Rich Manalang

Rich Manalang — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:04:12 +0000

Totally agree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion... whether it's good or bad. However, this type of behavior is what makes people not want to share their creations.

As an aside, I've been thinking about submitting some designs on http://threadless.com. Hopefully the community of voters there aren't as harsh as the dude you point out above.