There's a certain irony to the lack of tact in this post suggesting better manners. I suspect the point would be better received were it more politely made.
That post seems like quintessential trolling. It was my expectation as well when going to the page to just click the "Go" button and see what the results would be, and I think the suggestion is great feedback. I think it is generally in the spirit of these "Show HN" posts to give and get feedback and discuss with the creator. The response post to that user, to me, is patronizing and is undoubtedly going to ruffle some feathers. But, now we aren't even talking about the OPs cool project...
I've see something similar when offering items on freecycle: people seem to think that the more they insert "pls" and "thnx" into a message the more likely it is that they'll be first in the queue.
I swear at least once there was more instances of "pls" and thnx" (there seems to be a significant overlap between people who overuse the words and people who don't bother to type them properly, though that may be the linguistic snob in me talking) than all other words combined. It backfired by making the message difficult to read so I binned it and read the next.
Come on, this is Show HN! Not some GitHub issue tracker. Try to insert please and thank you in that post ... it will make it sound rude! It will turn it from Show HN feedback to sounding like a feature request, which it is clearly not...
If you can automatically detect sentences where adding "Could you" would make the author sound more tactful, then why not just mentally add them and assume that the author intended to sound that tactful?
This is a slight modification of the principle of charity, something I think is incredibly important and underemphasized, especially for online text communication.
Based on the thread here, many people interpreted the comment as a well-intended feature request, but instead of requesting the commenter to change their comment, it seems like it would’ve been fine to just use that charitable interpretation.
I’m all for being charitable in our interpretations of the motives of others, but I think a total lack of the most basic courtesy should be seen for what it is. The lower end of the spectrum being lazy, and the high end being rude, even charitably no positive interpretation exists IMO.
Please and thank you are such basic concepts that honestly, I judge the hell out of people who don’t seem capable of it regardless of platform. If that minimal degree of politeness isn’t reflexive for you, again, the world at large judges you. Not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe “why not add it in your head” is the kind of thing thst gives some in tech a bad name?
This is a bit off topic, but just to blow ones mind: Finnish, which I am natively speaking, is lacking direct "please" word completely and I have to admit that especially orally I forget it often. (We make things sound nice by conditional, "could you", "would you be so kind" etc..) I have no immediate reaction what so ever how it would feel if someone left out "please". I understand the concept, but it feels horrible how much wrong I can go with native English speakers without meaning it. Thanks for the reminder! (thank you we do have;)
That’s not off-topic at all! Honestly, I’m ashamed that I hadn’t considered the possibility of a non-native speaker’s linguistic quirks, and what this tells me is that I need to continue to work on my snap-judgements. Thank you for reminding me that languages don’t handle courtesy the same way.
This was really nice to hear! Don't worry, one can only think through ones own mind =) I think this already helps, if everybody are just a bit more aware about that others might think differently, and not be deliberately mean. I have learned several languages, since Finnish is very useless in a large scale, and it always amazes me how in different languages it is also thought differently. I can only recommend!
You're right that please and thank you could come off as sarcastic or a bit odd in a comment section like this.
The best route is probably to clarify that it seems like a good concept, and you think that adding x and y would be the best features to focus on that would make it even better.
There’s a human being at the other end of the line. They have feelings. This is their baby, which they’ve gestated for multiple years.
Rational fundamentalism is not the one ring to rule them all. There is room for love and compassion in the world. I know (painfully well) that Internet forums (and this one in particular) anything but empower empathy, but that doesn’t make it any less true or valuable.
There is room for love and empathy. There really is. Logical, rationalistic supremacy notwithstanding.
When your baby grows up, and you put it out in the world, you no longer need to--and no longer should--continue to treat it like a baby. The author is not her project, and statements about the project are not personal attacks on the author. And if she were going to take them as such, she probably wouldn't be sharing that project on HN.
This is not how humans work. Humans are not rational emotionless robots. Humans are complex beings , they have feelings, biases and emotions which they do not control. It’s humane , considerate and kind to keep that in mind when communicating with each other.
Nobody is perfect. We shouldn’t expect anyone to be. Being kind and considerate is not a waste of anyone’s time, it’s not disrespectful nor patronising.
Maybe all of this is not true for OP, maybe they’re so zen they immediately see past their human instinct to attach themselves to their work (a well known and documented human trait). But it can’t hurt to be tactful , just in case they’re not.
I know I personally would’ve felt hurt if that first comment were the reply to something I did. I might, hopefully, have realised that it was, indeed, a useful comment and that I should swallow my pride. And I hope I would have the presence of mind to reply with a smile and a thank you. But it would be a pretense.
Why put each other through that? We can be truthful and tactful. There is no reason to be blunt.
I can understand the desire to unshackle ourselves from the low entropy morass of politeness. It’s fake and not what you really feel, right? The truth shines through anyway, so do them the honour of not sugar coating it, and be straight? I do understand, but hear this: you lack the nonverbal cues to make that incredibly delicate call. Face to face you would see the twitch in someone’s eye, the soft breeze of disappointment whisking along their face. A tear of pain streaking their human heart while they smile and nod and say thank you. You have an incredibly attune radar for empathy, and you would adjust. But when you lose all that, and the medium for your truth is this harsh knife forged from the soulless steel of words, it cuts more sharply than you can imagine.
In a text only medium, I implore everyone on HN: take a moment to consider our humanity. Not just here, but in all threads. Not just of the person we reply to, but of those we speak of. They might read it one day. And they, too, are human.
(I should say the painful irony in this rant is palpable to anyone who knows me :( but I am not proud of it. Perhaps it’s precisely why I feel so strongly. It does, after all, take one to know one.)
No, of course the word you're after is "tact". (And even as a foreigner, it annoys the heck out of me when people mix them up [which you didn't!], ususally as in "take another tact" when they mean "take another tack" [where 'tack' is a originally a sailing term for flipping the sail to the other side of the boat when going against the wind, IIUC; so the expression means "go in a slightly different direction"].)
I'm just riffing on Heikki's remark about foreign languages: In my primary language, Swedish, "tack" means "thank you" but is also often used for Eng. "please" -- so "Kan du ... , tack?" means "Could you ... , please?".
