Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Personally, when I see a blog post like this I make a mental note about the author and the accused. I generally avoid both of them in the future. Yes, it says all of the bad things about the accused that the author lays out, but it also tells me the the author likes to stir up drama. When I do business, I like to do business with those companies that you often don't here about, positive or negative. The ones that just "do work". Companies like Mixpanel, for example. You only hear about them when they're offering some new feature. They don't blog about how somebody on Twitter did something dumb. And I just realized that this was dmor's personal blog, but hey guess what, I only have ever seen her picture on her blog associated with her company, so those are now linked and that's enough for me.


I couldn't disagree with this more. When people do something you find shady, you should complain! Loudly! This "keep your head down and don't stir up trouble" attitude is a huge part of why so many things never get fixed. And pointing out that a business has poor practices isn't drama; it's more like a review.


I agree with you, but I think it's more about the tone. The naming and point does give a bad impression for both sides.


Personally, when I see a comment like this I make a mental note about the commenter. I generally avoid them in the future. Yes, the OP did in fact cause some drama, but it also tells me the commenter reacts irrationally. When I do business, I like to do business with those companies that you don't here [sic] about, acting rationally or irrationally. They don't comment about how someone was stirring up drama. And I just realized this was a comment on Hacker News, but hey guess what, that's enough for me.


You're certainly entitled to your personal opinion, but really? You're saying that it reflects poorly on someone to relay a story of poor treatment toward them? You don't find any value in knowing this? Have the experiences of others never influenced your own decisions?

The author let the other party's tweets speak for themselves. There was no unnecessary or subjective sensationalization. Personally, I found this an informative (and weighty) data point.


So let me get this straight.

A company she'd had a bad experience with in the past tried to, in a tacky manner, engage her again by dismissing their competitor. She clearly cites why she does't use them anymore (because the company publicly tweeted she was using them, which anyone would be bent over), and the kid had the gall to say that she lacked class for not thanking him for a free trial. A. Free. Trial. And his biggest issue is that she never gave him free publicity for a service that she was trialing. Not "We're sorry about the previous confusion, we'd love to have you back," not "This was a misstep for us, how can we do better?" not "We took your feedback to heart and no longer announce this publicly."

We're talking about a personal Twitter account vs. a business one. Unless you're dealing with an absolute troll, you don't engage potential customers like this - especially when they have a completely valid point. Companies tweeting on your behalf or trying to use your likeness for publicity purposes is an issue that has come up multiple times here with much dismay. Why is it any different here?

This attitude is why I don't blog; I have a lot ideas for posts but a lot of them are how X can improve Y, and I tend to write with a "charged/enthusiastic" tone because, surprise, I'm passionate about this stuff.

I agree with Jeremy Bee on that comment page, her so-called attitude (which I'm failing to see at all here) in these tweets would be a non-issue if Danielle were male. Back-and-forths like this happen every day on Twitter; this is what the platform is best at. I'm honestly astounded that people are trying to shift any of the blame here on her for calling the guy out. She couldn't have been more indifferent about stating the truth of the matter, but apparently that makes her a drama bomb, "not a queen herself" and other ridiculously gender-charged labels.


Or maybe she is doing a public service by warning others about an unsteady business. That would be my interpretation.


Yep. In fact you could say "Why I won't be reading posts that start with Why I won't be..."


So I'm not allowed to talk about bad experiences? This seems vastly overly reductionary and "nice" to a weird fault. If I eat at a restaurant and the service is bad, I'll tell my friends to avoid it. If someone representing a company offers poor customer service and acts like a jerk, I'm going to warn my friends.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: