My Lack of Attention(champonthis.de)
champonthis.de
My Lack of Attention
https://www.champonthis.de/dev/rand/lack-of-attention
98 comments
"I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the
swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise,
nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of
skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."
It's true that effort helps success, and working for visibility is as important as working on making something great.
But sometimes life is just arbitrary.
Anyone who has worked in the "pop" media knows this. Artists pour their life and soul into films, symphonies and albums that get no listeners. They practice guitar for 10,000 hours and agonise over each note of a composition. They push and nothing happens, and they live in perpetual hope of "being discovered" in a world of overwhelming over-supply. One day some kid sticks a bangin' donk on a boing sound and it goes straight to the top of the charts with no explanation.
Unfair? Unjust?
Not really, if you allow for the essential randomness of things. Perhaps we put far too much belief in our ability to value things, and that includes marketing and communication as much as "quality" of design and execution.
It's true that effort helps success, and working for visibility is as important as working on making something great.
But sometimes life is just arbitrary.
Anyone who has worked in the "pop" media knows this. Artists pour their life and soul into films, symphonies and albums that get no listeners. They practice guitar for 10,000 hours and agonise over each note of a composition. They push and nothing happens, and they live in perpetual hope of "being discovered" in a world of overwhelming over-supply. One day some kid sticks a bangin' donk on a boing sound and it goes straight to the top of the charts with no explanation.
Unfair? Unjust?
Not really, if you allow for the essential randomness of things. Perhaps we put far too much belief in our ability to value things, and that includes marketing and communication as much as "quality" of design and execution.
Right, but you can't jump to the top of the charts without sticking the donk on the boing first (I assume that means uploading an original track?). I've seen a lot of references to the role luck plays in success, and I don't mean to diminish that role, but you can't get lucky without putting yourself out there. Sticking a donk on a boing takes real effort, as does any other 'shot on net' that one might take.
You can’t win the lottery without buying it first but still a lottery is a lottery…
Which game you play is certainly a factor. If you like composing original music that may be a game worth playing even if the odds are no better than an actual lottery.
>> Unfair
Of course its unfair. Life is unfair. There is quite literally nothing in life that is "fair".
Fairness is the worst hope you can have. If you are waiting for life to treat you fair, then you will die disappointed. And if you are reading this, then likely you are so far ahead of fair that fairness can only be a step back.
If you have success, then the best thing you can do is spread some unfairness around. Help others up, you can't help everyone, so it's not fair, but it's the best you can do.
Give someone an unfair leg up, give someone an unfair opportunity. Pass on some of the unfairness you already have.
Of course its unfair. Life is unfair. There is quite literally nothing in life that is "fair".
Fairness is the worst hope you can have. If you are waiting for life to treat you fair, then you will die disappointed. And if you are reading this, then likely you are so far ahead of fair that fairness can only be a step back.
If you have success, then the best thing you can do is spread some unfairness around. Help others up, you can't help everyone, so it's not fair, but it's the best you can do.
Give someone an unfair leg up, give someone an unfair opportunity. Pass on some of the unfairness you already have.
Almost. I love the bold poetic of how you put it. But let's please
s/fair/equal/.
The vernacular use of fair means something more than "equality".
The idea that life could be equal is patently ridiculous, and self-evidently undesirable. Equality is the worst hope you can have.
> likely you are so far ahead of fair that fairness can only be a step back.
That's a bit too pared down for my tastes. It supposes a linear, monotonic, single dimensional quality of life upon which we all agree. None exists. The best candidate - per capita GDP - is fatally flawed, as discussed here in many vibrant exchanges. As if some (disastrous) communist type reckoning could "reset" the world to parity? No, of course it never could. For one thing we'd all be in different physical locations, different ages, mental abilities, and so on, each dimension having its attendant pros and cons. In such a transformation many aspects of "Our western life" would actually improve, and not to see that would be parochial.
I'd say, if you're reading this; you're probably in an position, intellectually, to appreciate how an imposed "equality" would radically change your life, and make it worse in many ways but better in some others. Such a thought ought to shine light on the richness of life and culture that makes this unfair world such a beautiful place.
What I love about your comment is that compassion is not made a dependent of any schoolboy ideologies about equality or fairness.
> If you have success, spread some unfairness around. Help others up. you can't help everyone, so it's not fair, but it's the best you can do.
Absolutely. Bravo.
> Give someone an unfair leg up, give someone an unfair opportunity. Pass on some of the unfairness you already have.
I find this "empowering others" an ideal that resonates with me as a subversive stance against brain-dead systems that hold people back so that the chosen few might rule. It's spreading "fairness" by spreading "unfairness". Tactical dissemination of knowledge (fairness redistribution) is, for me, a core true hacker value. Code is one of the most extraorinary ways to transfer power. Like blatantly telling my students how to game and hack the Kobayashi Maru dreamed up by "well meaning" but ignorant administrators.
The vernacular use of fair means something more than "equality".
The idea that life could be equal is patently ridiculous, and self-evidently undesirable. Equality is the worst hope you can have.
> likely you are so far ahead of fair that fairness can only be a step back.
That's a bit too pared down for my tastes. It supposes a linear, monotonic, single dimensional quality of life upon which we all agree. None exists. The best candidate - per capita GDP - is fatally flawed, as discussed here in many vibrant exchanges. As if some (disastrous) communist type reckoning could "reset" the world to parity? No, of course it never could. For one thing we'd all be in different physical locations, different ages, mental abilities, and so on, each dimension having its attendant pros and cons. In such a transformation many aspects of "Our western life" would actually improve, and not to see that would be parochial.
I'd say, if you're reading this; you're probably in an position, intellectually, to appreciate how an imposed "equality" would radically change your life, and make it worse in many ways but better in some others. Such a thought ought to shine light on the richness of life and culture that makes this unfair world such a beautiful place.
What I love about your comment is that compassion is not made a dependent of any schoolboy ideologies about equality or fairness.
> If you have success, spread some unfairness around. Help others up. you can't help everyone, so it's not fair, but it's the best you can do.
Absolutely. Bravo.
> Give someone an unfair leg up, give someone an unfair opportunity. Pass on some of the unfairness you already have.
I find this "empowering others" an ideal that resonates with me as a subversive stance against brain-dead systems that hold people back so that the chosen few might rule. It's spreading "fairness" by spreading "unfairness". Tactical dissemination of knowledge (fairness redistribution) is, for me, a core true hacker value. Code is one of the most extraorinary ways to transfer power. Like blatantly telling my students how to game and hack the Kobayashi Maru dreamed up by "well meaning" but ignorant administrators.
> Unfair? Unjust? Not really
I'm not sure why you think that's neither unjust nor unfair. All you said is "it's random". I'm not sure why "it's random" implies it's not unfair or unjust.
I'm not sure why you think that's neither unjust nor unfair. All you said is "it's random". I'm not sure why "it's random" implies it's not unfair or unjust.
Randomness applies to everybody. "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it. But which category you're in to start with may well be down to random chance.
> "Unfair" is more often used to describe a situation where when those in category A do the same things as those in category B, but only those in one category get rewarded for it.
That's exactly the situation here. There are "lucky" and "unlucky" people. Those are your two categories.
That's exactly the situation here. There are "lucky" and "unlucky" people. Those are your two categories.
Unfair and unlucky are different concepts. Randomness could be perceived as lucky and unlucky, but that’s not what they’re saying. Randomness, if truly random, is as fair as it gets.
The randomness of life is only unfair or unjust if you deserve fame and accolades proportional to your effort simply because you put the effort in. You don't.
That depends whether you consider things must either be just or unjust or whether they can simply not be just, without being an injustice.
I don't see what the distinction you're making is. It seems things are either just or unjust. That seems like standard logic.
There can exist a third category in which things are neither just nor unjust. It really depends on whether your logic system is two-valued or many. There isn’t any universal standard. Can’t you see that there are distinctions in strength between trust, don’t trust and distrust? If you’ve never dealt with someone before, you might not trust them. But you wouldn’t distrust them without specific reason.
[deleted]
Here’s the deal - if you build (great things) they will come. The problem is people aren’t building great things, period.
Really think on it for more than a second - all the products that are “huge” are scaled through this “sales and marketing are more important.”
If your initial MVP doesn’t stop people in their tracks, turn around and say “I will cry if I can’t buy this.” Then go home, dust off and try again. Otherwise, yes, you will slog with the rest in SGA and CAC games.
scale isn’t the only way to success.
Really think on it for more than a second - all the products that are “huge” are scaled through this “sales and marketing are more important.”
If your initial MVP doesn’t stop people in their tracks, turn around and say “I will cry if I can’t buy this.” Then go home, dust off and try again. Otherwise, yes, you will slog with the rest in SGA and CAC games.
scale isn’t the only way to success.
>> The problem is people aren’t building great things, period.
Oh, I think they are. You just haven't seen them (yet?) and you probably never will, because their creators are slaving over perfection, somehow expecting the randomverse to spot it.
The winners are the ones who accepted imperfection, who were brave enough to show the incomplete, who were prepared to make the effort to do more than just write code.
VHS over betamax, Windows 95 over OS/2, Apple 2/mac over amiga. Our history is littered with marketing over product.
For every success there are 10 guys with a story about how their effort was better, how the winner was rubbish. But the winner always won the marketing game.
Too many coders are playing the perfect game of checkers, in a world where everyone else is playing an average game of chess.
Oh, I think they are. You just haven't seen them (yet?) and you probably never will, because their creators are slaving over perfection, somehow expecting the randomverse to spot it.
The winners are the ones who accepted imperfection, who were brave enough to show the incomplete, who were prepared to make the effort to do more than just write code.
VHS over betamax, Windows 95 over OS/2, Apple 2/mac over amiga. Our history is littered with marketing over product.
For every success there are 10 guys with a story about how their effort was better, how the winner was rubbish. But the winner always won the marketing game.
Too many coders are playing the perfect game of checkers, in a world where everyone else is playing an average game of chess.
I love this very much. Yes, so many creators never even show their work - I'm guilty and a multiple offender here - but the error is a far cry from the 'marketing' or 'product manager' position that's usually portrayed.
> VHS over betamax, Windows 95 over OS/2, Apple 2/mac over amiga. Our history is littered with marketing over product.
While these are tantalizing examples on the surface - if you dig deeper, you'll see they are all failures to give a damn about the end user. I'll just take the first at first level:
Betamax didn't allow for competition in the production of the tape player, thus being hundreds of dollars more for marginal improvement in picture quality. They ignored the end user over partnerships - aka they didn't build something great.
I'll step in your shoes and say one could argue that Apple proves that marketing matters, but that too, misses the big picture - Apple's iPod specs may have been less technically proficient, and though there was marketing - the very first time you felt aluminum and the glossy plastic in your hand - it was a completely different world of experience, in spite of its technical standing - that product was just great, period.
> VHS over betamax, Windows 95 over OS/2, Apple 2/mac over amiga. Our history is littered with marketing over product.
While these are tantalizing examples on the surface - if you dig deeper, you'll see they are all failures to give a damn about the end user. I'll just take the first at first level:
Betamax didn't allow for competition in the production of the tape player, thus being hundreds of dollars more for marginal improvement in picture quality. They ignored the end user over partnerships - aka they didn't build something great.
I'll step in your shoes and say one could argue that Apple proves that marketing matters, but that too, misses the big picture - Apple's iPod specs may have been less technically proficient, and though there was marketing - the very first time you felt aluminum and the glossy plastic in your hand - it was a completely different world of experience, in spite of its technical standing - that product was just great, period.
> The problem is people aren’t building great things, period.
+1000!
Praising is cheap.
+1000!
Praising is cheap.
Sounds like advertizing gospel to me.
It implies that people aren't actively looking for better solutions to their problems, which is just blatantly false.
If industries spent all of their marketing budget on research and development, we'd live in a very different world. Maybe even a better one. A world where companies aren't asking "how can we fool people into buying more of what we're already making" and instead ask "what can we make that's so good it practically sells itself?"
Quality always rises to the top. That's a law of nature.
It implies that people aren't actively looking for better solutions to their problems, which is just blatantly false.
If industries spent all of their marketing budget on research and development, we'd live in a very different world. Maybe even a better one. A world where companies aren't asking "how can we fool people into buying more of what we're already making" and instead ask "what can we make that's so good it practically sells itself?"
Quality always rises to the top. That's a law of nature.
>It implies that people aren't actively looking for better solutions to their problems, which is just blatantly false.
No, they don't.
The majority go with the defaults, and most of the rest stick to the first thing that "works for them".
If they try something else it's usually because of either mass promotion (like with Java in the late 90s) or hype by a smaller team of early adopters (like with Node and such), not by patiently looking and evaluating solutions alone.
>Quality always rises to the top. That's a law of nature.
That's not even close to a law of nature.
In fact, "crap rises to the top" might be closer to being that. I mean, if you want a blatant example, see the music top-10.
No, they don't.
The majority go with the defaults, and most of the rest stick to the first thing that "works for them".
If they try something else it's usually because of either mass promotion (like with Java in the late 90s) or hype by a smaller team of early adopters (like with Node and such), not by patiently looking and evaluating solutions alone.
>Quality always rises to the top. That's a law of nature.
That's not even close to a law of nature.
In fact, "crap rises to the top" might be closer to being that. I mean, if you want a blatant example, see the music top-10.
Indeed, marketing beats quality everytime. Vhs/beta, windows/Linux/OS2 and so on infinitum.
This topic is well researched. Those who actively look and are open to new solutions are called “Early adopters” and are just a tiny minority of the entire target audience.
But even they won’t find you if you don’t have an SEO-optimized page, for example, to give you a somewhat extreme example. Just doing nothing and waiting for someone to come is not an option.
But even they won’t find you if you don’t have an SEO-optimized page, for example, to give you a somewhat extreme example. Just doing nothing and waiting for someone to come is not an option.
PS: I just realized that doing a project and not telling people is in essence just like having an idea in your head.
> It implies that people aren't actively looking for better solutions to their problems, which is just blatantly false.
Not really. Think about it for a moment: are there more people actively searching for better solutions to each and every single problem they may or may not know they have? Or are there more people like you and me who go about their day just fine completely oblivious that there might be out there a far better way of doing things, or not even bothering to spend a second to address some nuisance they have?
> If industries spent all of their marketing budget on research and development, we'd live in a very different world.
Yes, it would be a world where fortunes were spent on R&D whose outcome benefitted no one at all because no one ever heard about the outcome.
Also, as a corollary to your anti-marketing stance, multiple redundant R&D projects would be wasting resources developing stuff that was already developed and reinventing the wheel primarily because no one knew that it was already done.
Not really. Think about it for a moment: are there more people actively searching for better solutions to each and every single problem they may or may not know they have? Or are there more people like you and me who go about their day just fine completely oblivious that there might be out there a far better way of doing things, or not even bothering to spend a second to address some nuisance they have?
> If industries spent all of their marketing budget on research and development, we'd live in a very different world.
Yes, it would be a world where fortunes were spent on R&D whose outcome benefitted no one at all because no one ever heard about the outcome.
Also, as a corollary to your anti-marketing stance, multiple redundant R&D projects would be wasting resources developing stuff that was already developed and reinventing the wheel primarily because no one knew that it was already done.
It's almost as if you believed that a world without advertizing wouldn't propagate any information.
> It's almost as if you believed that a world without advertizing wouldn't propagate any information.
I'm sure you are able to understand that actively spreading information is far more effective in getting the message out than sitting on your rear-end expecting that people are suddenly magically aware of you and things just drop from the sky onto your lap.
I'm sure you are able to understand that actively spreading information is far more effective in getting the message out than sitting on your rear-end expecting that people are suddenly magically aware of you and things just drop from the sky onto your lap.
If your ancestors had sat on their asses waiting for food to fall from the sky, you wouldn't be here. Clearly, exploration is in our DNA.
Sitting on your ass looking at ads is what advertizers want you to do. And it's in their interest to foster the belief that you couldn't survive without it.
Sitting on your ass looking at ads is what advertizers want you to do. And it's in their interest to foster the belief that you couldn't survive without it.
“ Quality always rises to the top. That's a law of nature.”
That is definitely not a law of nature.
That is definitely not a law of nature.
Depends on how big the quality difference is, if it is big enough then your product will grow exponentially via word of mouth, like Google did for example. That is just simple math, if you are good enough that people want to tell others about it then it will grow.
Problem is that today most technological needs are already filled by good programs so adding significant new value to peoples lives is extremely hard, so it is very unlikely that you can make naturally growing programs today on a tiny budget.
Problem is that today most technological needs are already filled by good programs so adding significant new value to peoples lives is extremely hard, so it is very unlikely that you can make naturally growing programs today on a tiny budget.
Google initially targetted a niche (geeks and nerds like us) with no-fuss, no-ads search experience where weight of the result depended mostly on how many citations it had. They were very present at conferences related to free software, for instance (which I'd consider investment in marketing).
And this group was the one in charge of "fixing their relatives' computers", so we were all too happy to tell them about Google: this is how word-of-mouth worked for them.
And this group was the one in charge of "fixing their relatives' computers", so we were all too happy to tell them about Google: this is how word-of-mouth worked for them.
Then why do all social animals organize into hierarchies?
First of all, it is not correct statement about all social animals.
And second, hierarchical organization does not mean at all quality is on top.
And second, hierarchical organization does not mean at all quality is on top.
Which social animal does not organize into a hierarchy?
Social animals organize into hierarchies precisely because hierarchies bubble quality to the top.
Social animals organize into hierarchies precisely because hierarchies bubble quality to the top.
The difficulty with this argument is what we mean by "quality". It's tautological to state that hierarchies select for "qualities that enable you to be higher on the hierarchy"; it's much more debatable as to the nature of those qualities (and, indeed, that the existence of the hierarchy itself doesn't change the fitness surface, so that the advantageous qualities are different to what they might have been without it). See, eg, the amount of energy antlered deer (especially males) expend on having large, healthy antlers, purely to compete with other male deer. "Having large antlers" is a "quality" that has very little adaptive value outside of the conditions created by the fact of a hierarchy itself.
> See, eg, the amount of energy antlered deer (especially males) expend on having large, healthy antlers, purely to compete with other male deer.
Deers have antlers for reasons other than competing with other deer. To defend themselves from predators.
Since they have them, they use them to settle differences in quality. In this case, quality of self-defence.
Deers have antlers for reasons other than competing with other deer. To defend themselves from predators.
Since they have them, they use them to settle differences in quality. In this case, quality of self-defence.
None of that is hierarchy as we normally use the term.
I can't help you if you're determined to normalize nonsense, but that's precisely what 'hierarchy' means. Perhaps you're tunnel visioning on a particular kind of hierarchy, a violent dominance hierarchy. But those haven't been a thing in social animals for a while now, because tyrants meet untimely ends when the herd grows wise.
>Perhaps you're tunnel visioning on a particular kind of hierarchy, a violent dominance hierarchy. But those haven't been a thing in social animals for a while now, because tyrants meet untimely ends when the herd grows wise.
Violent dominance is a very good way to describe hierarchy in many extant social mammals. Tyrants arise every day in both human and non-human animals. We aren't a century removed from one of the worst here in 2022. Are you thinking of eusocial mammals? The'yre closer to what you're describing here.
Violent dominance is a very good way to describe hierarchy in many extant social mammals. Tyrants arise every day in both human and non-human animals. We aren't a century removed from one of the worst here in 2022. Are you thinking of eusocial mammals? The'yre closer to what you're describing here.
Lions for example - they live in aliances. Wild boars. Quite a lot of social animals live actually in families. It is hierarchy insofar adults are raising the children, but the children leave as adults and make own families. There is not much bubbling up and down.
Also, in herd animals like sheep the hierarchy consist on basically more aggressive individual eating fist and getting what they want. But, the other members dont follow them and there is no meaning of leadership. Just that, if you are stronger and beat others, you can eat first or pick place to sleep.
> Social animals organize into hierarchies precisely because hierarchies bubble quality to the top.
They don't. In business, it can be "cheapest" or "lies the most convincingly" or "has the right connections".
Even among humans, the quality that fairy often bubbles on top is violence. You see that everywhere in the world. In Chechenia it is Kadyrov and his quality was "born to correct dad and already have proven he is ruthless when dad dies". The quality that got Adolf Hitler on top was "good speaker, able to channel fear and hate".
Those are extreme examples, but I wanted something super clear. What bubbles on top is what bubbles on top. It can occasionally be quality, but it can be host of other things too.
Also, in herd animals like sheep the hierarchy consist on basically more aggressive individual eating fist and getting what they want. But, the other members dont follow them and there is no meaning of leadership. Just that, if you are stronger and beat others, you can eat first or pick place to sleep.
> Social animals organize into hierarchies precisely because hierarchies bubble quality to the top.
They don't. In business, it can be "cheapest" or "lies the most convincingly" or "has the right connections".
Even among humans, the quality that fairy often bubbles on top is violence. You see that everywhere in the world. In Chechenia it is Kadyrov and his quality was "born to correct dad and already have proven he is ruthless when dad dies". The quality that got Adolf Hitler on top was "good speaker, able to channel fear and hate".
Those are extreme examples, but I wanted something super clear. What bubbles on top is what bubbles on top. It can occasionally be quality, but it can be host of other things too.
If you've ever watched a herd of horses, you'd know that's not true. Dominance bubbles to the top. Pushiness bubbles to the top. If the animal is also a decent leader, then great. A lot of the time it's insecure and too busy trying to maintain its position and the rest of the herd ends up harried and banged up.
Seen it in dogs too, seen it a million times in people. Those are more artificial situations though.
Seen it in dogs too, seen it a million times in people. Those are more artificial situations though.
You are proving my point. Strength and leadership are survival qualities to wild herd animals. The hierarchy allows those qualities to rise to the top. It is the herd that collectively decides to give space to the individual with those qualities. The "alpha horse" does not "dominate" the herd; no single individual can match the strength of an entire herd. The herd gives permission for the qualities to reach top of hierarchy, because those are the qualities the herd wants to select for.
If the animals making up the hierarchy disagrees with the individual on top, they remove it from the hierarchy. Easily. That's the whole point of herds, packs, and hierarchies. Together stronger than alone.
If the animals making up the hierarchy disagrees with the individual on top, they remove it from the hierarchy. Easily. That's the whole point of herds, packs, and hierarchies. Together stronger than alone.
"qualities" and "quality" are two different things. Pushiness is quality as in "property", but not "quality" as in "the degree of excellence of something." In this case, lower quality individual bubbles on top, cause other horses don't want to deal with jerks aggression.
> If the animals making up the hierarchy disagrees with the individual on top, they remove it from the hierarchy. Easily. That's the whole point of herds, packs, and hierarchies. Together stronger than alone.
You write about it as if animals were rational systems thinkers and that is just not so.
> If the animals making up the hierarchy disagrees with the individual on top, they remove it from the hierarchy. Easily. That's the whole point of herds, packs, and hierarchies. Together stronger than alone.
You write about it as if animals were rational systems thinkers and that is just not so.
> Pushiness is quality as in "property", but not "quality" as in "the degree of excellence of something."
It's quality as in the degree of excellence of pushiness.
> In this case, lower quality individual bubbles on top, cause other horses don't want to deal with jerks aggression.
That would be a higher quality individual, according to the horses.
> You write about it as if animals were rational systems thinkers and that is just not so.
We're talking about behavior that evolved millions of years ago in crustaceans, the serotonin brain system that specializes in regulating social hierarchies in animals, is still present and functioning today in you and the horses. Attribution of rationality is on your part, and in no way diminishes the effectiveness of the social brain, and the hierarchy which it encodes.
It's quality as in the degree of excellence of pushiness.
> In this case, lower quality individual bubbles on top, cause other horses don't want to deal with jerks aggression.
That would be a higher quality individual, according to the horses.
> You write about it as if animals were rational systems thinkers and that is just not so.
We're talking about behavior that evolved millions of years ago in crustaceans, the serotonin brain system that specializes in regulating social hierarchies in animals, is still present and functioning today in you and the horses. Attribution of rationality is on your part, and in no way diminishes the effectiveness of the social brain, and the hierarchy which it encodes.
I feel like you misunderstood my post. I said that pushy, dominant horses end up at the top of the hierarchy. That pushy, dominant horse might be a good leader or it might be insecure or just plain mean and spend its time chasing the rest of the herd around and picking fights. I think I used the phrase "harried and banged up" to describe the state of the herd in this situation. I suppose that in the long run, evolution-wise, that animal's offspring are less likely to survive. During its lifetime, however, it beats up the other horses and they lose body condition as the dominant horse can't chill out and let the band graze.
Sounds like a local optimum, a difficult, unsolved problem permeating everything. How do you know if the good you've got is the best you can have?
Hierarchy is one approximate solution, but hardly the globally optimal one.
Hierarchy is one approximate solution, but hardly the globally optimal one.
Look to every world leader. Is it apparent, agreed upon, or even reasonable to assume they’re the “quality” for their locale? No, they’re the best at marketing, or “campaigning”.
Counter example: VHS
Not really, VHS was similar to Betamax. Beta has a slightly better recording format than VHS due to resolution (250 lines vs. 240 lines). Both same scanline ratio.
The misconception is people confuses Betamax with Betacam, (both from Sony). Betacam was the Sony format for broadcasters, and the one with high quality (sound and picture). But bloody expensive.
Betamax lost due two to reasons. (1)tapes can only record 1 hour. Not enough for most recordings. Sony addressed the wrong market. (2) Price and retail distribution.
In other words, Betamax lost because VHS has a better market fit, and the market choose the technology that allowed to have theater movies in the video rental store.
(I was a Beta owner back in the 80s).
The misconception is people confuses Betamax with Betacam, (both from Sony). Betacam was the Sony format for broadcasters, and the one with high quality (sound and picture). But bloody expensive.
Betamax lost due two to reasons. (1)tapes can only record 1 hour. Not enough for most recordings. Sony addressed the wrong market. (2) Price and retail distribution.
In other words, Betamax lost because VHS has a better market fit, and the market choose the technology that allowed to have theater movies in the video rental store.
(I was a Beta owner back in the 80s).
Great explanation, thank you! I did not know the difference.
Guess then the point is that there is not one single scalar "quality" and things are not one-dimensional.
Guess then the point is that there is not one single scalar "quality" and things are not one-dimensional.
It would be the same world in which countries don't spend on armies. It's the same exact thing.
Yes I think you're totally right. That doesn't change the fact, that I just really don't like marketing and don't want to invest the time. Of course it's naive and not totally right, but to some point I would say, I am immune to advertising. If I need something, I do research if there is something valuable. If someone wants to sell me something, in the end I am even more skeptical about the product. Anyways, I didn't thought my post will get that much attention, it was more for my self-compassion. Because I know, how I at least COULD try to fix the issue. But I just don't want to. From another comment here:
> but they don't want take the required steps to get that attentions
In the end, it comes down to this. So yes, there is now solution. I want to get the benefit without investment because I dream of a world not existing where everyone would do research to find the best.
> but they don't want take the required steps to get that attentions
In the end, it comes down to this. So yes, there is now solution. I want to get the benefit without investment because I dream of a world not existing where everyone would do research to find the best.
>> That doesn't change the fact, that I just really don't like marketing and don't want to invest the time
Exactly. And you don't need to. No one says you _have_ to market. But marketing leads to attention. So I think you know the cause effect here.
>> . I want to get the benefit without investment because I dream of a world not existing where everyone would do research to find the best.
I'm not sure I can say this without being a dick, which is a pity, because I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm saying this out of a place of respect.
There are around 8 billion people on earth. I promise you that if I did all the research I'm pretty sure (statistically) your projects are not the best. There's an even chance they are not even average.
Plus, I'm guessing there are likely 100 projects that do what your do. Should I do a deep dive into each one. Do a comparative analysis? 1 hour on each? Say a month's full time job? Repeat for every bit of software I've ever installed?
Did you install each BSD build and every Linux distribution, and every other OS out there before you selected one for your computer? Did you try Oberon or reactOS? Surely you did your own research for this most critical part of computing?
Of course not. We outsource our research. We Google. We solicit the opinion of others. We use whatever is convenient, available, and in front of us.
Me, I did research. I decided that people who were prepared to put effort into marketing would make a product that better fitted my needs, because they are showing interest in customers.
Again, I say this not to be a dick. You have choices. You understand cause and effect. You are welcome to do the work, or you are welcome to labour in obscurity. It's your choice.
But make no mistake, you are not doing your own research, and you are not making the best product. I'm sure you are making things with value, but if you don't get it out there, we'll, the result is well understood.
Exactly. And you don't need to. No one says you _have_ to market. But marketing leads to attention. So I think you know the cause effect here.
>> . I want to get the benefit without investment because I dream of a world not existing where everyone would do research to find the best.
I'm not sure I can say this without being a dick, which is a pity, because I'm not trying to be a dick. I'm saying this out of a place of respect.
There are around 8 billion people on earth. I promise you that if I did all the research I'm pretty sure (statistically) your projects are not the best. There's an even chance they are not even average.
Plus, I'm guessing there are likely 100 projects that do what your do. Should I do a deep dive into each one. Do a comparative analysis? 1 hour on each? Say a month's full time job? Repeat for every bit of software I've ever installed?
Did you install each BSD build and every Linux distribution, and every other OS out there before you selected one for your computer? Did you try Oberon or reactOS? Surely you did your own research for this most critical part of computing?
Of course not. We outsource our research. We Google. We solicit the opinion of others. We use whatever is convenient, available, and in front of us.
Me, I did research. I decided that people who were prepared to put effort into marketing would make a product that better fitted my needs, because they are showing interest in customers.
Again, I say this not to be a dick. You have choices. You understand cause and effect. You are welcome to do the work, or you are welcome to labour in obscurity. It's your choice.
But make no mistake, you are not doing your own research, and you are not making the best product. I'm sure you are making things with value, but if you don't get it out there, we'll, the result is well understood.
Thanks, your not a dick at all with your comment. But of course I want to differentiate a bit. I have written about my two examples because there are only the two. I am not complaining about attention due to quality, bit attention of existence. And I am talking explicit about specialised projects with a core audience. To stay with your OS example: you're developing MacOS and everyone is only taking about Windows and Linux. But I still think this is not a good metaphor. And how do you outsource research? It's only possible because others did.
In case of my Gloomhaven app, I only really complain about my posts on Reddit don't be as visible as from the ONE other app.
In case of my hardware token: there didn't exists any kind of this, at least as cheap OSS project (it run on a 10€ M5Stack, currently only with battery pack for longer time but anyway). And the attention I wanted was, that some people see the potential and bring it to a real product. It was and is my first real C hardware project and as hobbyist, I just wanted someone with expertise in that métier grab my project and optimize it. I knew that my code was not good, because I have no expertise. But I also knew nothing like this existed and I thought it would be very useful.
My other projects? I don't care, I make all for fun, I have personal benefits of it, so I don't care. I also don't care about the named one in that direction. I am proud of myself and my GH app still get more appreciation than expected ever, so at all I am happy with all. Just a bit jealous yesterday and wrote about it. Never thought about getting so much resonance to it. And as already mentioned, I know I can change something to do more marketing, but a big thing missing: I don't sell a product here. And not complaining about getting famous around 8 billion people.
In case of my Gloomhaven app, I only really complain about my posts on Reddit don't be as visible as from the ONE other app.
In case of my hardware token: there didn't exists any kind of this, at least as cheap OSS project (it run on a 10€ M5Stack, currently only with battery pack for longer time but anyway). And the attention I wanted was, that some people see the potential and bring it to a real product. It was and is my first real C hardware project and as hobbyist, I just wanted someone with expertise in that métier grab my project and optimize it. I knew that my code was not good, because I have no expertise. But I also knew nothing like this existed and I thought it would be very useful.
My other projects? I don't care, I make all for fun, I have personal benefits of it, so I don't care. I also don't care about the named one in that direction. I am proud of myself and my GH app still get more appreciation than expected ever, so at all I am happy with all. Just a bit jealous yesterday and wrote about it. Never thought about getting so much resonance to it. And as already mentioned, I know I can change something to do more marketing, but a big thing missing: I don't sell a product here. And not complaining about getting famous around 8 billion people.
In the last paragraph I think lies the key: attention makes you uncomfortable? So it sounds like you have an internal conflict where you both want and don't want attention at the same time.
Maybe I am similar, I am very reluctant to promote my work, I don't want too much attention.
I actually briefly worked a job doing social media marketing where it was my job to create attention grabbing content. I had some moderate success there, but the more I succeeded the more I was overwhelmed, I really did not enjoy having to deal with so many messages every day and gave up the work very quickly. Part of me liked the attention, but a bigger part didn't want it.
tl;dr: I am an introvert, sounds like you are too, maybe some successful introverts can share their advice with us.
Maybe I am similar, I am very reluctant to promote my work, I don't want too much attention.
I actually briefly worked a job doing social media marketing where it was my job to create attention grabbing content. I had some moderate success there, but the more I succeeded the more I was overwhelmed, I really did not enjoy having to deal with so many messages every day and gave up the work very quickly. Part of me liked the attention, but a bigger part didn't want it.
tl;dr: I am an introvert, sounds like you are too, maybe some successful introverts can share their advice with us.
From my understanding, I won't say about myself that I am an introvert. Like I don't feel uncomfortable on a stage or talking to people. It's more like I just don't have a need to stay in focus or like getting much attention. That's maybe part of the problem too. Like someone else mentioned, you cannot seperate completely the attention of my project from my person, but I would like to. So it's not directly that I am uncomfortable with attention. But first of all I think one have to deserve it. It's often the problem, like the loudest get more attention, besides they shouldn't get it. Difficult to say all, most comments pointed more the problem out: I am really in between, like to want attention and on the other side not.
One of the best comments I have ever read on HN. Thanks. And: I fully agree!
[deleted]
Outstanding comment. Thank you for investing your time writing such a gem.
I feel like the author answered their own problem. They say:
“Someone else created a very similar app. This person modded the old app before, is for sure more active in the community and has far more knowledge in the game. He has a better legacy and he deserves it.”
Then the author says:
“I don't like people catching attention. I don't want attention to my person. I don't want some "Look at him!"-moments. I want "Look at this!"-moments.“
And yet the author did a ”Look at him!” to the competition. Others are probably doing the same thing and that’s why their work is getting attention. Maybe somewhere in this introspection lies the answer.
If you feel you have something others may find useful, just mention it. You’re doing yourself and others a disservice by not doing so. What’s the worst that can happen when mentioning your app has that feature people are requesting? You have to start somewhere.
“Someone else created a very similar app. This person modded the old app before, is for sure more active in the community and has far more knowledge in the game. He has a better legacy and he deserves it.”
Then the author says:
“I don't like people catching attention. I don't want attention to my person. I don't want some "Look at him!"-moments. I want "Look at this!"-moments.“
And yet the author did a ”Look at him!” to the competition. Others are probably doing the same thing and that’s why their work is getting attention. Maybe somewhere in this introspection lies the answer.
If you feel you have something others may find useful, just mention it. You’re doing yourself and others a disservice by not doing so. What’s the worst that can happen when mentioning your app has that feature people are requesting? You have to start somewhere.
Marketing and networking are more important than most people realize.
You can have an amazing feature set but if no one knows about it then it wont get used.
It's the same with you as a developer. You can be the best developer in the world but you won't get paid like you are unless people know about you and you're in demand.
Also that title reminded me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8ShAosqzI&ab_channel=Kolle...
You can have an amazing feature set but if no one knows about it then it wont get used.
It's the same with you as a developer. You can be the best developer in the world but you won't get paid like you are unless people know about you and you're in demand.
Also that title reminded me of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8ShAosqzI&ab_channel=Kolle...
Thank you so much for sharing that youtube link, it made me laugh so hard
It feels vaguely on topic for me to speak about something that happened to me regarding an open source project I made.
It was the one time that a project of mine generated a bit of buzz on HN. But I hadn’t posted it myself, someone else did. But they posted a link to a fork, which no changes of their own, claiming that someone else had posted it. The fork got 30 ish stars and follows, and nobody in the HN thread pointed out that they were starring a fork with no changes.
This really sucked, since I would have liked to develop an open source project that had users, but this was my project and now I had to negotiate with some other guy I didn’t know who had probably just taken the credit for my work. It didn’t work out.
Anyone else had this happen to them? What’s a constructive way to deal with that?
It was the one time that a project of mine generated a bit of buzz on HN. But I hadn’t posted it myself, someone else did. But they posted a link to a fork, which no changes of their own, claiming that someone else had posted it. The fork got 30 ish stars and follows, and nobody in the HN thread pointed out that they were starring a fork with no changes.
This really sucked, since I would have liked to develop an open source project that had users, but this was my project and now I had to negotiate with some other guy I didn’t know who had probably just taken the credit for my work. It didn’t work out.
Anyone else had this happen to them? What’s a constructive way to deal with that?
> What’s a constructive way to deal with that?
"Hey, I am the original author of this. AMA."
"Hey, I am the original author of this. AMA."
Yeah, this. You could be the one to point out the fork in the thread. Don't wait for someone else to do it.
"this is a fork of xxx, I'm looking forward to seeing the community grow in this way. I'm the author of xxx, feel free to AMA, or reach out. Any participation in the project is welcome and encouraged."
"this is a fork of xxx, I'm looking forward to seeing the community grow in this way. I'm the author of xxx, feel free to AMA, or reach out. Any participation in the project is welcome and encouraged."
If the fork is using github, there's going to be lots of trails back to your project. Especially if you continue to update, and they don't, it'll show this branch is 30 commits behind your branch, etc... That's often a good indicator that I should check out your branch... even if the fork got better PR.
The suggestion to do an AMA in the post seems pretty decent too.
The suggestion to do an AMA in the post seems pretty decent too.
If you care for that, then why aren't you filling out your HN profile?
I’m not the type to self promote much, plus, a lot of bad experiences in the industry (due to maverick type behavior), so filling out profiles seems like a waste of time.
But, I’ll have to come out of hiding soon enough, have spent the last year+ developing a pretty unusual project. Actually I’m sure I should have been blogging about it already. But it’s hard for me to have positive expectations, and I know that alot of what I have to say is going to be divisive.
Now that I saw the first replies to my comment, I realize that I wasn’t really seeing the big picture in that moment, someone can’t really steal your open source project, the thing to do would have been to mention it in the thread and then just keep on developing it as I had been. Anyone who wanted to use it would eventually realize that the fork wasn’t where the action was at.
Truth is there is some kind of trauma at play, and actually there is for a lot of people, but trauma is still a bad word, we don’t really talk about it on HN, actually a lot of conversation in tech has been sterilized, the mindshare is highly sought after.
But, I’ll have to come out of hiding soon enough, have spent the last year+ developing a pretty unusual project. Actually I’m sure I should have been blogging about it already. But it’s hard for me to have positive expectations, and I know that alot of what I have to say is going to be divisive.
Now that I saw the first replies to my comment, I realize that I wasn’t really seeing the big picture in that moment, someone can’t really steal your open source project, the thing to do would have been to mention it in the thread and then just keep on developing it as I had been. Anyone who wanted to use it would eventually realize that the fork wasn’t where the action was at.
Truth is there is some kind of trauma at play, and actually there is for a lot of people, but trauma is still a bad word, we don’t really talk about it on HN, actually a lot of conversation in tech has been sterilized, the mindshare is highly sought after.
Sorry to hear about your bad experiences. For me, filling out HN profile isn't about self promotion. It's about enabling like-minded folks on HN to reach out to me if they want to. If I don't do that, it creates an extremely big hurdle for people to do that since I'm not on any social networks.
p.s. Will refresh your profile a few more times.
p.s. Will refresh your profile a few more times.
Relatable.
I have the same problem, except it's not "I'm jealous that somebody gets more attention" but rather "I don't get attention and I have no idea how to change that". Doesn't looks like I'm the only person with this kind of issue, either.
I often see high-effort blog posts with, like, one or two comments under each post. Sometimes none at all.
To give a related example: https://twitter.com/tom7 does super high effort funny things for SIGBOVIK — e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDxjbXAqTPg — and yet his personal blog of 20 years at http://radar.spacebar.org/ has at most 5–10 comments per post.
I used to have 500 followers on Twitter and they would respond to things sometimes/often... and even then I felt like the attention would be very lukewarm. In the end I gave up, deleted the account, and decided that I'm just not going to rely on strangers for attention at all. I still think it's possible, it's just that I personally either don't know how to do it, or have some kind of a background issue (ADHD? anxiety? attachment issues? something else starting with A?) that prevents me from somehow asking for attention naturally/consistently. At least that's my current theory.
Eh.
I have the same problem, except it's not "I'm jealous that somebody gets more attention" but rather "I don't get attention and I have no idea how to change that". Doesn't looks like I'm the only person with this kind of issue, either.
I often see high-effort blog posts with, like, one or two comments under each post. Sometimes none at all.
To give a related example: https://twitter.com/tom7 does super high effort funny things for SIGBOVIK — e.g. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDxjbXAqTPg — and yet his personal blog of 20 years at http://radar.spacebar.org/ has at most 5–10 comments per post.
I used to have 500 followers on Twitter and they would respond to things sometimes/often... and even then I felt like the attention would be very lukewarm. In the end I gave up, deleted the account, and decided that I'm just not going to rely on strangers for attention at all. I still think it's possible, it's just that I personally either don't know how to do it, or have some kind of a background issue (ADHD? anxiety? attachment issues? something else starting with A?) that prevents me from somehow asking for attention naturally/consistently. At least that's my current theory.
Eh.
> But I don't want to steal attention, so I cannot write comments advertising my app. I am not that kind of person.
I get it. But this is the kind of advertising that's OK in my book. Exposing people who are clearly interested (rather than maybe interested based on, for example, previous shopping habits) to something they have not heard of. And of course you don't want to steal attention, but you can do it in a polite way, demonstrating respect to the other product. Maybe you have to be a little shameless in those situations if you want your products (not you) to get attention.
I get it. But this is the kind of advertising that's OK in my book. Exposing people who are clearly interested (rather than maybe interested based on, for example, previous shopping habits) to something they have not heard of. And of course you don't want to steal attention, but you can do it in a polite way, demonstrating respect to the other product. Maybe you have to be a little shameless in those situations if you want your products (not you) to get attention.
Yeah they want the attention but they don't want take the required steps to get that attentions. Sometimes it helps to reflect on our values. Yes you might get offended at the loud mouths that crave attention all the time but that doesn't mean there isn't some value in that activity. Putting yourself out there and selling yourself is important. We all have something to offer the world. The way to maximize that is to get Infront of people and let them know what we have to offer.
> but they don't want take the required steps to get that attentions
Yes, that's definitely right. As long as there is not something extremely unfair, I am very polite and don't want to offend anyone. I personally feel offended by let's call it "usual marketing techniques". They try to blend, discredit other's and so on. That's not me. In the current example with the GH app, it's also more complaining about the Reddit algorithm, but that one is also logically, like said, that someone with higher reputation get's more attention and back on: I don't want to post useless stuff. I only write, when I have something to say. Good example is a German news portal: There is a limit of 50 comments you need to write before you are allowed to post links. It's not about, if that is a good idea or not, my point is: It took me 9 years for this. Because I only wrote a comment, when I thought this has really value for others. So again, my reputation on this board is from an algorithm perspective really bad. Same may go for Reddit.
Yes, that's definitely right. As long as there is not something extremely unfair, I am very polite and don't want to offend anyone. I personally feel offended by let's call it "usual marketing techniques". They try to blend, discredit other's and so on. That's not me. In the current example with the GH app, it's also more complaining about the Reddit algorithm, but that one is also logically, like said, that someone with higher reputation get's more attention and back on: I don't want to post useless stuff. I only write, when I have something to say. Good example is a German news portal: There is a limit of 50 comments you need to write before you are allowed to post links. It's not about, if that is a good idea or not, my point is: It took me 9 years for this. Because I only wrote a comment, when I thought this has really value for others. So again, my reputation on this board is from an algorithm perspective really bad. Same may go for Reddit.
I have some skin in this game. :)
OP's app is Gloomhaven Secretary. The other app is X-Haven Assistant. I announced a similar app, Gloomhaven Full Stack, before either of those apps were started and before GH Helper was discontinued.
All of our apps can exist only because of the generosity of Gloomhaven's creator, Isaac Childres. He made all the game assets available for use in apps as long as we don't make money. And we are all building on the success of GH Helper. We are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Everything OP says about XH Assistant, I could be saying about GH Secretary. I had all the features before both of them. I have original features that they both "copy". (I did it first, but ideas are cheap, and they may have come up with it independently.) But they both look a lot nicer than mine. I feel jealousy too, but I understand why users would like the other apps more than mine.
After my initial jealousy, I was actually quite glad they existed because I could now tell users if they don't like my app, no worries try one of these others. I include links to the other apps when I post updates to my app. I often tell users about GHS along side my own app if they both address a user's issue.
To address my own jealousy, I try to feel more gratitude. I think of it as healthy competition and happy to promote competitors if they are more what the user wants. I should probably do more to acknowledge the apps that inspired me.
For now, my app still has features the others don't. I created my app to do more than GH Helper, intentionally not be a clone and experiment with ways of doing things differently from GH Helper, and to combine the functionality of 4 different apps that I was previously using. I am resolved to the fact that the other apps might eventually implement all those features, but I will continue with my app as long as I have new ideas I want to add.
OP's app is Gloomhaven Secretary. The other app is X-Haven Assistant. I announced a similar app, Gloomhaven Full Stack, before either of those apps were started and before GH Helper was discontinued.
All of our apps can exist only because of the generosity of Gloomhaven's creator, Isaac Childres. He made all the game assets available for use in apps as long as we don't make money. And we are all building on the success of GH Helper. We are standing on the shoulders of giants.
Everything OP says about XH Assistant, I could be saying about GH Secretary. I had all the features before both of them. I have original features that they both "copy". (I did it first, but ideas are cheap, and they may have come up with it independently.) But they both look a lot nicer than mine. I feel jealousy too, but I understand why users would like the other apps more than mine.
After my initial jealousy, I was actually quite glad they existed because I could now tell users if they don't like my app, no worries try one of these others. I include links to the other apps when I post updates to my app. I often tell users about GHS along side my own app if they both address a user's issue.
To address my own jealousy, I try to feel more gratitude. I think of it as healthy competition and happy to promote competitors if they are more what the user wants. I should probably do more to acknowledge the apps that inspired me.
For now, my app still has features the others don't. I created my app to do more than GH Helper, intentionally not be a clone and experiment with ways of doing things differently from GH Helper, and to combine the functionality of 4 different apps that I was previously using. I am resolved to the fact that the other apps might eventually implement all those features, but I will continue with my app as long as I have new ideas I want to add.
Haha, I never thought ANYONE would read my post nor did I thought that one of GH app creators would. That's why I was explicit with my projects what I am talking about. So maybe I give my 2 cents to your comment.
First of all, I think you're still a bit out of competition, because FHA and GHS are really clones of the old GHH. So it's like the chess app has gone, we create two chess app clones and you do 3d-chess app. So in that case my comparison about features is really about covering the original app and not about new features I added. So first disclaimer, but you already know that: I really appreciate the work of the other app devs. I wouldn't be able to support all the editions, if I couldn't scrape all the data from FHA. And I am never ever jealous, if people prefer one app over another. In this particular case, it's really about the Reddit visibility (and GH community there): An update from my side gain ~30 upvotes, FHA ~180 in half of the time. Because of that there are also more comments and many comments like: "I still use the old app, would like to switch if you have feature XY (from the old app)" and they seem to just not heard about any other app exists and already support that feature. To go the chess metaphor, I am talking about people used to play the normal chess, they used to it. Your 3d-chess might be a good replacement too, but it's just not the same. And then they asking when the knight will be implemented so they can switch (I totally exaggerate here, don't want to boil down the good and hard work of FHA!), I am just looking and thinking, the knight is working like month ago, my last update was about multiplayer. But again, I am not jealous in that way, that I think they should please use my app, because I am better and so on. But due to Reddits sorting, they just haven't even heard about other app existing. And yeah, I don't want to play those social algorithms. GHS get mentioned enough and already a lot of people like it. But it was now the third time where I posted an update and 1-3 days later, FHA update is killing just everything regarding upvotes and feedback. And then I am jealous. That's all and I ranted a bit about that on the internet. Now it's there, and I felt memories about my other project, where I also tried to get some attention I was more jealous, because then the other projects gaining more attention were really out of scope and I couldn't even appreciate any of this.
First of all, I think you're still a bit out of competition, because FHA and GHS are really clones of the old GHH. So it's like the chess app has gone, we create two chess app clones and you do 3d-chess app. So in that case my comparison about features is really about covering the original app and not about new features I added. So first disclaimer, but you already know that: I really appreciate the work of the other app devs. I wouldn't be able to support all the editions, if I couldn't scrape all the data from FHA. And I am never ever jealous, if people prefer one app over another. In this particular case, it's really about the Reddit visibility (and GH community there): An update from my side gain ~30 upvotes, FHA ~180 in half of the time. Because of that there are also more comments and many comments like: "I still use the old app, would like to switch if you have feature XY (from the old app)" and they seem to just not heard about any other app exists and already support that feature. To go the chess metaphor, I am talking about people used to play the normal chess, they used to it. Your 3d-chess might be a good replacement too, but it's just not the same. And then they asking when the knight will be implemented so they can switch (I totally exaggerate here, don't want to boil down the good and hard work of FHA!), I am just looking and thinking, the knight is working like month ago, my last update was about multiplayer. But again, I am not jealous in that way, that I think they should please use my app, because I am better and so on. But due to Reddits sorting, they just haven't even heard about other app existing. And yeah, I don't want to play those social algorithms. GHS get mentioned enough and already a lot of people like it. But it was now the third time where I posted an update and 1-3 days later, FHA update is killing just everything regarding upvotes and feedback. And then I am jealous. That's all and I ranted a bit about that on the internet. Now it's there, and I felt memories about my other project, where I also tried to get some attention I was more jealous, because then the other projects gaining more attention were really out of scope and I couldn't even appreciate any of this.
Fair enough. My app is somewhere between GH Helper and a light-weight Table Top Simulator mod. I would definitely feel happier knowing that your app and others are not going to add all the features mine adds. haha. :)
By the way Lurkars, I love your app, and would probably be using it if I hadn't created my own. :)
I appreciate your post here and think a nice rant can be a reasonable way to address ego and jealousy. I have similar feelings as you and have ranted to my friends some of the same things you said.
In the end though, for both of us, I think the jealousy is mostly unfounded. We can rant and then should probably let it go.
I appreciate your post here and think a nice rant can be a reasonable way to address ego and jealousy. I have similar feelings as you and have ranted to my friends some of the same things you said.
In the end though, for both of us, I think the jealousy is mostly unfounded. We can rant and then should probably let it go.
Feels good to hear, that you feel a bit the same. I just thinks we both don't have this reputation for Reddit algorithm or maybe mods boost some posts of people they already knew. I am not sure how Reddit works in that way and I am always using chronological sorting on explicit subreddits, so I do not miss any posts. But it seems like a lot of people are more like the frontpage users and our posts just don't show up that much.
I was thinking at first lack of attention as lack of concentration -_-‘
Wow, author here. Now I get way more attention than I wanted to. Have to first read through all the comments, but first thanks for all your feedback so far.
>I am not a person who needs or even wants to gain attention (...) The problem for me start's when other software gets more attention and I know mine is better or at least even and I was first.
There's some contradiction here...
There's some contradiction here...
I think, although not explicitly mentioned in these two paragraphs, that the two kinds of attentions are different.
The first is on the personal level, the second is on the project level.
Although the author seems to separate the twos as being completely separated, I'm pretty sure they aren't. You can't have one without having the other.
The first is on the personal level, the second is on the project level.
Although the author seems to separate the twos as being completely separated, I'm pretty sure they aren't. You can't have one without having the other.
Yes, it was just first introduction where I am a bit unsure how to really say what I mean. It's more when it get more attention for not obviously reasons or more like complaining why people don't do more research and find me (yes I know that's not how markets work as mentioned in other comments).
Just want to mention, that I got this attention now, because a moderator here put my post to the second chance pool. In the end, this is exactly what I wish would happen everywhere: someone discovers something good and do the marketing. Very unlikely to happen, but I wish it happens more. They will be more people like me, doing stuff and don't want to or cannot invest more time in marketing etc.
To put it bluntly, if you're not "so good they can't ignore you", you need very good communication skills to promote your work. I would ask people close to me for feedback/advice on that.
I don't think the issue is just attention, it's also simply informing people. If someone misses features in the other app, and your app has those features, I think it's entirely valid to point that out. That's not stealing attention, that's informing someone about alternatives they're probably not aware of. It's helping someone. By keeping quiet about your project, you're denying others the opportunity to enjoy your work.
totally get it.
i havent released much. and the quality is questionable. but i totally get it.
me and my SO discussed this briefly, her suggestion is to only do things for yourself.
my thoughts to that: yeah, sure. but working a dayjob _and_ working the dream, who is going to cheer me on? im bad at multitasking, so after a day or two of spinning my wheels i will most likely loose all drive, because i can see that i wont make it in the near future to the finish line. Also, nobody except me cares, but do i really care? there are projects i do care about a lot, but because i care so much i havent really put any deliberate concrete planing into it as to keep anything possible. this way i pick up small projects left and right, turn them over a couple of times in my mind and then drop them. big ones i just dream about ad infinitum... i hate it but i havent found the jenesaiqua to motivate myself to do anything really. much less so if i only do it for myself.
being cheered on by family always feels like "oh wow, that is a nice cat you drew" "its a horse" "oh yeah now i see it...(they never did)": empty encouraging words. blind eyes appreciating art. deaf ears praising the timbre of an instrument. v_v
at least when i cook a meal i can eat it and experience whether or not it tastes good. but with software? what am i supposed to make that will make my life a bit better: an automatic doomscroller? scoffs
I wish you well, lurkars, may your projects gain the recognition they deserve
i havent released much. and the quality is questionable. but i totally get it.
me and my SO discussed this briefly, her suggestion is to only do things for yourself.
my thoughts to that: yeah, sure. but working a dayjob _and_ working the dream, who is going to cheer me on? im bad at multitasking, so after a day or two of spinning my wheels i will most likely loose all drive, because i can see that i wont make it in the near future to the finish line. Also, nobody except me cares, but do i really care? there are projects i do care about a lot, but because i care so much i havent really put any deliberate concrete planing into it as to keep anything possible. this way i pick up small projects left and right, turn them over a couple of times in my mind and then drop them. big ones i just dream about ad infinitum... i hate it but i havent found the jenesaiqua to motivate myself to do anything really. much less so if i only do it for myself.
being cheered on by family always feels like "oh wow, that is a nice cat you drew" "its a horse" "oh yeah now i see it...(they never did)": empty encouraging words. blind eyes appreciating art. deaf ears praising the timbre of an instrument. v_v
at least when i cook a meal i can eat it and experience whether or not it tastes good. but with software? what am i supposed to make that will make my life a bit better: an automatic doomscroller? scoffs
I wish you well, lurkars, may your projects gain the recognition they deserve
> what am i supposed to make that will make my life a bit better: an automatic doomscroller? scoffs
One heuristic is to think of what problems you face in daily life, and imagining a way to deal with them with technology. Problems don't have to be big, and your solution doesn't have to be perfect, just helpful enough.
"omg Netflix's recommendations suck" -> Personal recommender system
"omg I want to watch this movie, but I have to search all of the streaming services individually to find out if it's even available" -> Scraper
"I have lots of tasks to do, but want them to interface with my calendar and follow a particular priority, and remind me according to some set of rules" -> To Do list
Build small things and write about them. Eventually some will find success and you can choose to keep building or not.
One heuristic is to think of what problems you face in daily life, and imagining a way to deal with them with technology. Problems don't have to be big, and your solution doesn't have to be perfect, just helpful enough.
"omg Netflix's recommendations suck" -> Personal recommender system
"omg I want to watch this movie, but I have to search all of the streaming services individually to find out if it's even available" -> Scraper
"I have lots of tasks to do, but want them to interface with my calendar and follow a particular priority, and remind me according to some set of rules" -> To Do list
Build small things and write about them. Eventually some will find success and you can choose to keep building or not.
My stuff gets zero attention. I also think most stuff isn't worth giving my attention to (either overhyped, not useful/interesting, etc). Sad to say, but my junk is probably not worthy of attention either.
I'm fine with that. If people find it useful - great. I'm not going to spend money marketing free software. I do sympathize with the feeling of "that piece of crap got attention, but mine didn’t?", but that's just life.
I'm fine with that. If people find it useful - great. I'm not going to spend money marketing free software. I do sympathize with the feeling of "that piece of crap got attention, but mine didn’t?", but that's just life.
Wait, back up, Gloomhaven Helper is gone? I shut down my campaign when the pandemic started and was just gearing up to resume!
Well the good news is someone made a replacement then: https://www.champonthis.de/projects/gloomhavensecretary
Haha, yes. But I hope I created a really good successor. So check it out, of you need an app.
I wonder what happened to it. Copyright issues?
Here is the statement from Esoteric Games to the story: http://esotericsoftware.com/gloomhaven-helper
They declined to create a FH app and Cephalofair declined then to make any more money with GHH. So it was shut down.
They declined to create a FH app and Cephalofair declined then to make any more money with GHH. So it was shut down.
that is very sad. I would not have thought that Isaac would react in that way. Communication on the Frosthaven updates did not sound like that.
Gloomhaven helper was a high quality product and improved playability by a lot. Esoteric games did Cephalofair a great service. Sad to see it end this way.
Gloomhaven helper was a high quality product and improved playability by a lot. Esoteric games did Cephalofair a great service. Sad to see it end this way.
It's only one side of the discussion represented here. There are some more impeachments on both sides. All in all, from all I know it seemed just like really bad communication in both sides.
Some say, it was also a bad move to just remove GHH, it could have stay online for free or released as OSS. I am not here to judge, I just hope my Gloomhaven Secretary will be a good successor. We used this app too. Now I can easily add my own improvements ideas and also make some community members happy with implementing their feedback by developing my own app.
Some say, it was also a bad move to just remove GHH, it could have stay online for free or released as OSS. I am not here to judge, I just hope my Gloomhaven Secretary will be a good successor. We used this app too. Now I can easily add my own improvements ideas and also make some community members happy with implementing their feedback by developing my own app.
I had to chuckle as I read the post. I, too, suffer from occasional bouts of jealousy when I see "competitor" JS canvas libraries get some sunshine and appreciation in various venues for features that I think (in my own very opinionated opinion, of course) my library does better[1].
But this state of affairs is, as other commenters have pointed out, entirely my fault. For a library or product to gain traction in the target market, it needs three things: easy access, awareness of its existence, and good support. For a library like mine, this boils down to the following:
+ Easy access - it's my responsibility to make the library easy for other developers to find (GitHub, website), add to their projects (npm/yarn, compatibility with bundlers, etc), use in their code (well documented API, TS support, etc), and cause them minimal problems within the wider project (plays nicely with frameworks, doesn't destroy page efficiency, doesn't break the toolchain, etc). This is the work I enjoy and spend a lot of non-dev time doing.
+ Awareness of its existence - which is marketing. Either I have to spend a lot of time telling people about my library and (more importantly) telling them how my library solves their problems. Or I have to find "champions" - people who use, and like using, the library so much that they will go out and promote it for me. Or I can spend money on getting proper marketing help, adverts, etc ... which is not going to happen.
+ Good support - beyond documentation, I need to be willing to either spend time helping people resolve issues and misunderstandings they have with the library, or I need to build a community of people happy to help me do that work. Sadly I am not the sort of person who enjoys the high level of social engagement that's needed to build that community.
So, yeah ... it is my fault that the competitors get the glory. But then again they deserve their place in the sunshine because they've done the work I've not been willing to engage with. As for the occasional bouts of jealousy? They remind me that I'm still human, that I still care. Which is a Good Thing!
[1] I keep track of what the competitors are up to mainly by following their repos on GitHub. Most of the issues people raise seem to be about TypeScript errors and breaking updates. But sometimes I'll see someone ask for a feature they want added to a library, and I'll find myself thinking: "my library does that already!" and I'll get a little shiver of jealousy. Like this request for a "Transformation box for texts" made in the Fabric.js repo - https://github.com/fabricjs/fabric.js/issues/8195
But this state of affairs is, as other commenters have pointed out, entirely my fault. For a library or product to gain traction in the target market, it needs three things: easy access, awareness of its existence, and good support. For a library like mine, this boils down to the following:
+ Easy access - it's my responsibility to make the library easy for other developers to find (GitHub, website), add to their projects (npm/yarn, compatibility with bundlers, etc), use in their code (well documented API, TS support, etc), and cause them minimal problems within the wider project (plays nicely with frameworks, doesn't destroy page efficiency, doesn't break the toolchain, etc). This is the work I enjoy and spend a lot of non-dev time doing.
+ Awareness of its existence - which is marketing. Either I have to spend a lot of time telling people about my library and (more importantly) telling them how my library solves their problems. Or I have to find "champions" - people who use, and like using, the library so much that they will go out and promote it for me. Or I can spend money on getting proper marketing help, adverts, etc ... which is not going to happen.
+ Good support - beyond documentation, I need to be willing to either spend time helping people resolve issues and misunderstandings they have with the library, or I need to build a community of people happy to help me do that work. Sadly I am not the sort of person who enjoys the high level of social engagement that's needed to build that community.
So, yeah ... it is my fault that the competitors get the glory. But then again they deserve their place in the sunshine because they've done the work I've not been willing to engage with. As for the occasional bouts of jealousy? They remind me that I'm still human, that I still care. Which is a Good Thing!
[1] I keep track of what the competitors are up to mainly by following their repos on GitHub. Most of the issues people raise seem to be about TypeScript errors and breaking updates. But sometimes I'll see someone ask for a feature they want added to a library, and I'll find myself thinking: "my library does that already!" and I'll get a little shiver of jealousy. Like this request for a "Transformation box for texts" made in the Fabric.js repo - https://github.com/fabricjs/fabric.js/issues/8195
"if you build it, they will come". Never has one cliche been so exactly wrong.
Programmers, myself included, believe(d) that the code is the product. That the code will speak for itself. That being "better" (for some definition of better) is enough. If I build it, they will come.
The truth though, the code is about 10% of the effort to make a successful product. It is much more work, and frankly harder work, to to the marketing to get the product in front of the customer. It is then much more work to turn that into a sale (if your work is commercial.)
For decades I've heard programmers lament that they do all the hard work, they deserve the lion's share, all those guys do is sell it.
So here's the thing. Your code does not just "get attention". You earn that by investing time, and money but mostly time, in getting that attention.
That means going to where your target market is. Showing them you can add value to the group (I spent a lot of time answering unrelated questions.) showing how your offering can add value to the group. You do not "get" attention, you have to _earn_ it.
So, if you want your product to get more attention, then by extension you need to personally get more attention. You need to find your target group, be useful, be helpful, engage with them, built trust.
So you've made a tool for people without a smart-phone. OK, not a market I would have chosen[1], but that's not relevant. The thing you need to figure out is how to reach those people. Since they are not online, you will need to reach them offline. You need to go to where they are, not expect them to find you.
[1] choosing a market first, one you have a strategy to reach, then making a product is usually better than the other way around. Not least because joining a community, and adding value there for s while, before making a product, builds trust. It also helps you build a product they will find useful, not just something you randomly thought of.
This is life; through failure we learn more, through persistence we achieve.