I asked a straightforward question about whether an app that can't be used to create a spreadsheet should be considered a spreadsheet app, and because of that I "represent one of the worst forces at work in the world." I neither ridiculed nor made fun of Grid, as you claim I did; however, you seem to take pleasure in ridiculing and making fun of me. I'm sorry that I didn't heap the app with praise -- from the video I saw, it does look like an impressive beginning. Perhaps if I had, my question would have been met with an answer without such disrespect.
> from the video I saw, it does look like an impressive beginning. Perhaps if I had, my question would have been met with an answer without such disrespect.
One does need to take a bit of care to avoid looking like you're being snide and "witty." Something which is ambiguously a salient point or a bit of snark may be mistaken for snark. (If it might look like snark, it might look like snark?)
Or, one can just not care. If you have interesting things to say, long term you can weather a few dozen downvotes.
I took your comment to be "the elephant in the room." (I've been thinking of a "sub-sub-spreadsheet" app -- one that just totals columns of numbers.)
The reason I interpreted your question as a snarky one is that it seemed such a pointless one otherwise-- like asking, say, whether a boat can be called a boat at a stage so early in its construction that it wouldn't float.
But it sounds from your reply like you really did mean it seriously. Perhaps you believed that the guys who wrote Grid never intended to develop it further, and you were puzzled that they were calling it a spreadsheet. If so I apologize.
I think though that many of the people who upvoted you did realize that this post was an instance of a startup launching an early version one that they plan to develop further, and your innocent question thus became snarky in their hands.
I agree with atacrawl... No one would ship a boat if it didn't float. It's acceptable in todays software to ship a very simple version, especially on mobile devices, and Grid looks awesome. I wouldn't want more feature in it for version 1, but I don't see how it reinvents spreadsheets. It is something new entirely, that seems to be a perfect fit for content creation on touch devices, but it looks closer to a powerpoint/keynote concurrent than a spreadsheet one.
I think the you misinterpreted his question by rushing past the TechCrunch headline.
If you see a headline that says "Dewey Defeats Truman" you expect to read a story explaining that Truman has been defeated. Similarly, if you see a headline that says "Grid Reinvents The Spreadsheet" you expect to read a story that explains that the spreadsheet has been reinvented.
In the story itself, the founders don't pretend that Grid has a reinvented spreadsheet ready to go. They have an interesting proof of concept that they intend to enhance until it reinvents the spreadsheet.
A reader, having been misled by the headline (not misled by the founders) is naturally going to ask atacrawl's question. Any criticism implied in such a question is properly directed at TechCrunch, not at Grid.
In atacrawl's position, I would be distressed at the people "agreeing" with the snark you misread from his question.
I still maintain that it's pointless to lash out at the snarky commenters... If they ARE being snarky, lashing out isn't going to help, and if they aren't, we'll risk alienating to genuine commenters.
I respect your judgement with regards to the dynamics of the community more than mine, but I'd like to suggest that it may still serve us well to give the benefit of the doubt. I think we're all basically in agreement at this point, however.
I think if you phrased it as less of a critical question e.g "Does this preclude Grid from being a spreadsheet app right now?" and/or perhaps "Will this feature be added eventually?" -- you may have received a warmer response. I do think the response was a bit sharp but I hope it's understandable.
Paul never said he wanted you to heap praise on the app. A simple rephrasing would have sufficed :)
The gp commenter's feelings were hurt. Understandably so, though that's also not how pg meant his comment. (Note that pg's comment is conditional, therefore speaking directly to the ambiguity.)
You really don't think pg's comment was meant to hurt feelings?
This is pretty freaking harsh, and I imagine would trigger a feeling of defensiveness in almost anyone: "Maybe you think you're making some sort of important point here. Or maybe you realize your comment is inane and you think it's witty. But (perhaps without realizing it) you and the people upvoting you represent one of the worst forces at work in the world."
It's incongruous with the site guidelines, in fact: "... Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face to face conversation. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names ..."
I do not think it was intended to be personal, but somehow I find it strange that "feedback" gets bashing. Isn't that what "Show HN" posts are for ? What, you care enough to post your question/impression/opinion about an upcoming app, and you are treated as a member of "worst forces at work in the world", a servant of the Devil or something.
In my book ANY feedback is valuable, even the ones who say your app is crap/irrelevant/missing a key feature. If one if scared of getting feedback, then entrepreneurship is probably not the right occupation for them.
There is no name calling there. He's covering the bases of the commenter's mental state, then explaining the unfortunate circumstance he sees. The "maybe you" phrases could be interpreted as harshness, but I think it's more likely that they're to be taken exactly at face value, and that pg wants to call attention to this circumstance.
I honestly don't believe it's fair to not interpret the maybes as name calling. Even so, the "But you ... represent one of the worst forces at work in the world" cannot possibly be defended as not a personal attack. Come on! I would not say that to someone's face, and it certainly isn't being civil.
Then you admit that the content is okay, but that the wording of the last bit is unfortunate. Looks like an understandable mistake of editing and point of view, not a deliberate attack.
