The way youâve gone about it seems reasonable enough to me (i.e. I donât think you need to do anything to correct it now).
I still think it is ideal to run a critique like this past an organisation firstâprimarily because of the chance of misunderstandings. Iâm being agnostic here about whether a misunderstanding would be your fault or the fault of AIM for using ambiguous terms/â entering the wrong number etc⊠The thing weâd be trying to avoid is spreading a critique of an organisation that is based on a hard to dispel/âcorrect misunderstanding (many more people would see a critique than a correction).
I explain in the post that the mod team can help you get some feedback from the org first if youâd rather not do it yourself/â donât feel you have a warm enough lead. Just dm me on the Forum if youâd like that help in the future.
PS- given âIâm new to posting on the Forum and Iâd take your read on the convention seriouslyâ Iâd also add that I think youâd get more readers if you shared the whole post here. When I first saw this I thought this was the whole post (link-post and cross-post are pretty easy to conflate on the Forum). If you instead want people to spend time on your blog website, Iâd just make sure to put a âcontinue readingâ link at the end. Though, youâll get more comments if you put the full post on the Forum.
Thanks Toby, both the specific guidance and the offer are super helpful.
The asymmetric-reach point is something I had not thought of, but makes perfect sense. Even when a misunderstanding would be the orgâs to own, the critique travels further than the correction, so the pre-share is doing real work beyond politeness. Iâll treat it as the default going forward, and Iâll take you up on the DM route next time rather than trying to find a warm lead myself. That removes my main hesitation.
And good catch on the link-post vs cross-post distinction. I didnât get that, either, somewhat conflated them. For the next one Iâll put the full text on the Forum with a canonical link back. Youâre right that the comments are where the methodology actually gets pressure-tested, and honestly, my blog has no commenting enabled, so the Forum is clearly where the conversation should live. Appreciate you taking the time to flag both of these.
Cheers!
The way youâve gone about it seems reasonable enough to me (i.e. I donât think you need to do anything to correct it now).
I still think it is ideal to run a critique like this past an organisation firstâprimarily because of the chance of misunderstandings. Iâm being agnostic here about whether a misunderstanding would be your fault or the fault of AIM for using ambiguous terms/â entering the wrong number etc⊠The thing weâd be trying to avoid is spreading a critique of an organisation that is based on a hard to dispel/âcorrect misunderstanding (many more people would see a critique than a correction).
I explain in the post that the mod team can help you get some feedback from the org first if youâd rather not do it yourself/â donât feel you have a warm enough lead. Just dm me on the Forum if youâd like that help in the future.
PS- given âIâm new to posting on the Forum and Iâd take your read on the convention seriouslyâ Iâd also add that I think youâd get more readers if you shared the whole post here. When I first saw this I thought this was the whole post (link-post and cross-post are pretty easy to conflate on the Forum). If you instead want people to spend time on your blog website, Iâd just make sure to put a âcontinue readingâ link at the end. Though, youâll get more comments if you put the full post on the Forum.
Thanks Toby, both the specific guidance and the offer are super helpful.
The asymmetric-reach point is something I had not thought of, but makes perfect sense. Even when a misunderstanding would be the orgâs to own, the critique travels further than the correction, so the pre-share is doing real work beyond politeness. Iâll treat it as the default going forward, and Iâll take you up on the DM route next time rather than trying to find a warm lead myself. That removes my main hesitation.
And good catch on the link-post vs cross-post distinction. I didnât get that, either, somewhat conflated them. For the next one Iâll put the full text on the Forum with a canonical link back. Youâre right that the comments are where the methodology actually gets pressure-tested, and honestly, my blog has no commenting enabled, so the Forum is clearly where the conversation should live. Appreciate you taking the time to flag both of these.