That is not relevant. The conclusion of the review on the website is being dismissed because of some other qualities of the website that have no bearing on the quality of the review being performed.
> Judging some factors surrounding the content is quickly done, and generally a good approximation for the quality of the content itself.
How obnoxious is the website, how tasteful is the design? Is the copyright year in the footer up-to-date (terrible signal if the year is wrong)?
> A crass analogy, but I'll not take health advice from someone with brown stains on their pants either.
Please stop commenting like this. It’s totally unacceptable to post abusive comments like this, no matter who or what you're replying to. It was valid to point out that the parent commenter was unfair and off-topic in their complaints about the site. But you lose the high-ground when you express yourself in this way. Please stop this if you want to keep participating here. <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't comment like this on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
trvz · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Drupon · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
incognition · · focus · HN ↗
petersellers · · focus · HN ↗
That is not relevant. The conclusion of the review on the website is being dismissed because of some other qualities of the website that have no bearing on the quality of the review being performed.
trvz · · focus · HN ↗
petersellers · · focus · HN ↗
> A crass analogy, but I'll not take health advice from someone with brown stains on their pants either.
These are literally ad hominems.
Drupon · · focus · HN ↗
tomhow · · focus · HN ↗
tomhow · · focus · HN ↗