Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> That pretty much explains everything, thank you for your time.

...

> If you feel that such a disclaimer is necessary, it would be better to phrase the question differently in the first place.

And waste even more time, no thanks.



sort by: page size:

> Are you deliberately trying to sound like an idiot?

I understand the frustration, but please do not violate the site guidelines like this.

The comment would be appropriate and stronger with just the first question.


> Is there a way for me to flag something as incorrect?

THat's the problem with these types of sites (and the problem with SO), most of the answers and submissions are by people who don't know what they are doing.

I think these sort of sites always need a big disclaimer on every page (PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS IN PRODUCTION CODE). It's the blind leading the blind.


> why even bother to work for them?

Do you really need an answer?

Sorry if I seem too aggressive, but I am quite frustrated by your (fake? real?) cluelessness.


> And you still haven't answered my questions. Because it's inconvenient.

No, you just made that up.


> Is "this website" all of the web?

Do I actually have to answer this?

.

> Good God, can we please stop with the cheap rhetoric and at least try to discuss things in a productive way?

I didn't engage in any rhetoric.

The question I asked you remains unanswered, and I was in fact being productive.

Sorry you got stuck. Better luck next time I guess


> ... since you seem incapable of finding this basic information on your own:

That's a pretty rude response to an honest question.

Thanks for the list.


> It must be [...] easy to understand why you're asking.

This is the most common place I've seen the pattern you describe go wrong. Sites that ask me for seemingly unnecessary information are asking to be left.


> I hadn't tried that particular search

So, the one example you provided you hadn't taken the 10 seconds to validate?

You're not providing value here. Please make an effort to make meaningful and additive comments instead of spewing misinformation or made up anecdotes.


> The more information is NOT better at all. Information overload will cause great harm

Although I appreciate your desire to decide what information I’m allowed to access I’m going to politely decline. Thanks for the offer.


> Your first sentence was quite condescending, FYI, not sure if it was meant to be.

No, it was not and thank you for flagging that. Is it condescending to assume one is not a web developer if they don't know content negotiation? I thought that was Web 101 and pretty much one of the first things you go through when learning about HTTP, but maybe things have changed as of late.

I'm sorry spelunker if my message came off as condescending, I have no real idea of your professional and was only trying to provide a resource to learn more, not to push anyone away.


>I feel that this is a rather poor question, and comes off as a little immature and naive.

Well forgiveness please that not everyone is a technology expert who knows exactly how to phrase questions professionally. Instead of belittling someone who lacks the domain knowledge you claim to, why not politely answer them in good faith if you have something to say. A sadly common thing on this site, privileged people with a bit of a superiority complex quick to snarky responses and criticisms on honest questions and show & tells.


> I managed to successfully complete the (a) flow, but it was considered not enough, due to the different IP, and minor inaccuracy with the creation date.

That's exactly what I mean though. You didn't answer their questions correctly. It wasn't just due to your location/IP; you put in the wrong date. (It's quite funny/ironic that you are also answering my questions incorrectly and yet insisting otherwise. While I sympathize with you for the actual problem, it doesn't help anyone sympathize when they see facts being twisted!)


> you should simply flag the submission

I did ... However, I also tried to be helpful by explaining to the poster what information, had it been available, would have avoided my flag.


> Have you actually read anything about either of those APIs or are you just reacting to the names?

I admit, this is exactly what I did :(

appreciate the info


>This is an honest question because I can't understand the motivation behind it.

How informed should the user be? What qualifies as an informed user?

This is getting into some dangerous territory because it because implies so some sort of contract literacy.


> Yes, I struggle to think of a good reason to work for such a harmful company as Meta.

Then you aren't actually asking to learn. Instead you are judging the poster. That's a thing you can do, but couching it in a question is terrible forum etiquette.


> Wait, what is “that other thing” I’d have told myself to do?

Well, I guess you’ll just have to read until the end to find out

...

> If I could go back in time and tell myself what to do in order to save time, I’d tell myself to go sign up for StackThatMoney (STM) and start reading through all the tutorials + traffic source guides.

ps. I did not read past the “well I guess” part as I got a tad annoyed at the tone, just scrolled to see what the other thing was.


>OK, well now you have a couple answers.

You're rude with your snark.


> Stop programming like a bunch of clowns!!!

This was my first thought too. It's frustrating to see these questions when the answer is blindingly obvious to someone who takes even a small amount of time to do research. It makes them read as if they're all asked in bad faith, of which I am not convinced they are not.

next

Legal | privacy