The Scene Will Kill You(bhargreaves.com)
bhargreaves.com
The Scene Will Kill You
http://bhargreaves.com/2010/11/scene-kill/
17 comments
[deleted]
Im not sure how superficial those things are. How you host, deploy, test, (data?) are important and usually rise on the merits of the technology. The larger community provides support, advice and evangelism and fuels the popularity of the technology.
As a counter to my own argument... http://www.mailchimp.com/blog/ewww-you-use-php/
As a counter to my own argument... http://www.mailchimp.com/blog/ewww-you-use-php/
It's weird that that article is only a couple of weeks old, because I think he's putting way too fine a point on PHP backlash. Who are they interviewing and getting such pushback on PHP, people who already don't like PHP?
Sure, there are language nerds and IRC-fueled rivalries, but when interviewing prospective employees it would seem they're choosing from the most myopic. If they are entry-level FOOC one-lang kids, it seems additionally strange that their attitudes would form the basis for a blog post with such sweeping characterizations.
It just seems like he's either putting way to much stock into the thoughts of unseasoned professionals, or for some reason they're interviewing lots of non-PHP people for PHP positions. I don't know, his argument and reception of language backlash in this context just seems a bit dated and I'm left wondering if it's just a matter of their posting poorly-written job ads.
Sure, there are language nerds and IRC-fueled rivalries, but when interviewing prospective employees it would seem they're choosing from the most myopic. If they are entry-level FOOC one-lang kids, it seems additionally strange that their attitudes would form the basis for a blog post with such sweeping characterizations.
It just seems like he's either putting way to much stock into the thoughts of unseasoned professionals, or for some reason they're interviewing lots of non-PHP people for PHP positions. I don't know, his argument and reception of language backlash in this context just seems a bit dated and I'm left wondering if it's just a matter of their posting poorly-written job ads.
Brb data-ing.
Good article. But I thought it would talk about the warez scene. When you google "the scene", this is the first result you get:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Warez_scene
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Warez_scene
Everyone thinks of the scene they had/have the most experience with as "the scene."
Actually, Google does this too. When I search for "the scene" the first result is a local alt weekly (The Nashville Scene).
It is kind of off-topic, but I think search rankings are now less a indication of authority and more an indication of the searchers personal preferences.
It is kind of off-topic, but I think search rankings are now less a indication of authority and more an indication of the searchers personal preferences.
Nevertheless, the first link if you're not logged in is to that Wikipedia article gasull linked to: http://i.imgur.com/N7dXW.png
[deleted]
My first guess was the demo scene (which sprang up from the warez scene years and years ago).
My first thought was the bboying scene. I was ready to break out the tapes and a card-board (I bet you don't even know what the last one is for, huh? It's like a yoga mat, for people who eat meat.)
This isn't talked about enough. Scenes exist to promote themselves in an overly glossy, media friendly light. Most of the good stuff is, as usual, outside the scene and is what you don't hear about.
Of course, this is true in just about anything.
Of course, this is true in just about anything.
The tech startup game has a lot more in common with Wall Street than meets the eye.
This post is why I stopped going to tech meetups (the non-programming kind) a long time ago.
This post is why I stopped going to tech meetups (the non-programming kind) a long time ago.
I really agree with this sentiment, I have had 2 startups, 1 built without any contact with "a scene", and one built while I was part of "the scene"
The one build while being a part of the scene was far more successful, but only compared to the first, I do think having a scene is one of the most valuable startup resources possible, however if you let it drive your product it will most likely push you towards some niche echo chamber type product.
I think my best filter is to take in advice others have learned from their experience, but take caution when people give you advice / suggestion about your product.
The one build while being a part of the scene was far more successful, but only compared to the first, I do think having a scene is one of the most valuable startup resources possible, however if you let it drive your product it will most likely push you towards some niche echo chamber type product.
I think my best filter is to take in advice others have learned from their experience, but take caution when people give you advice / suggestion about your product.
Totally agreed!
People play games and have egos; but I think the overly-stylised prose of this post, goes a long way towards glorifying what it's potentially trying to criticise.
It's a bit over the top for my taste .. reads a bit like a teaser for a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.
It's a bit over the top for my taste .. reads a bit like a teaser for a Jerry Bruckheimer movie.
I think his disdain for "B-level and C-level people" is arrogant. I see this sentiment a lot amongst startups and coders, the idea that some people are good and the rest are complete garbage. There is no objective measurement for this. I've seen people described as top-level that I thought were awful, and even though I think highly of myself I'm sure not everyone does. Some people use validation by the scene as measurement of a person's worth; I'd like to know what the author thinks makes an A-level person. Presumably, being popular in the scene disqualifies them. Nevermind the hip startups with good connections that get sold for many millions of dollars.
"A-level person" is really an attitude, not a personality trait. It means that you're engaged in the work, you're aware of all the relevant factors you need to consider to make a good project, you creatively and proactively seek out problems and solve them, and so on. Basically, that you're Smart and Get Things Done.
You can take someone who's C-level (just coasting) at one company, transplant them to another company, and they might become an A-level player. If someone thinks the work they're doing is pointless, they're probably not going to invest much effort in that work, regardless of how smart they are. Put them in a situation where they really care about how well the company does, and you might see very different results.
Conversely, you can take someone who was A-level at one company, transplant them into another company, and find they're suddenly underperforming. If there's a culture mismatch or they think everyone around them is a doofus, they're probably not going to do a good job.
I think that the article's point is pretty much right on, unless someone's job is specifically to sell to people in the Scene. After all, if they're engaged in the Scene, they're probably not engaged with their work, and that's really what being an A-level player is about.
You can take someone who's C-level (just coasting) at one company, transplant them to another company, and they might become an A-level player. If someone thinks the work they're doing is pointless, they're probably not going to invest much effort in that work, regardless of how smart they are. Put them in a situation where they really care about how well the company does, and you might see very different results.
Conversely, you can take someone who was A-level at one company, transplant them into another company, and find they're suddenly underperforming. If there's a culture mismatch or they think everyone around them is a doofus, they're probably not going to do a good job.
I think that the article's point is pretty much right on, unless someone's job is specifically to sell to people in the Scene. After all, if they're engaged in the Scene, they're probably not engaged with their work, and that's really what being an A-level player is about.
Totally agree with except for one nit. I don't think involvement of engagement in the Scene is really a damning characteristic in and of itself. Whilst engagement in the Scene is definitely not a necessary or even useful thing for someone to do, I don't think I'd go so far as to say that it can be harmful (at least any more so than I'd warn someone to stay away from drinking or gambling).
I submit that it is possible to enjoy the perks of the Scene like meeting other folks doing similar things, sharing ideas, comparing practices and so forth in moderation, without getting sucked into a time-wasting echo-chamber that doesn't provide any value.
I submit that it is possible to enjoy the perks of the Scene like meeting other folks doing similar things, sharing ideas, comparing practices and so forth in moderation, without getting sucked into a time-wasting echo-chamber that doesn't provide any value.
Well, if level is this mutable, it's not really useful. I.e. you couldn't use historical achievements as a predictor of someone's level.
There are higher-level attitudes like: "I won't commit to something I can't deliver / If I commit to something I will deliver" that may fall under your attitude categorization, and also correlate to the person's record.
There are higher-level attitudes like: "I won't commit to something I can't deliver / If I commit to something I will deliver" that may fall under your attitude categorization, and also correlate to the person's record.
When the author says, "B- and C-level players" -- I think he means anyone who isn't adding real value. He's not referring to some unseen caste system.
The problem is there is a fair population of people who do believe in such a caste system and use the "A-level" to describe those they think are on top. If you want to mean something else, it would be clearer to use different terminology.
Talks on startup hiring always refer to "A players", "B players" and "C players". I was speaking in that context.
The great companies were built on this kind of arrogance.
There is an objective test to find out if you're an A-player: people who have successfully built something in the past want you on their next team.
(This doesn't capture all the people who could be A-players, or are at that level but aren't known to many.)
(This doesn't capture all the people who could be A-players, or are at that level but aren't known to many.)
I don't think there's anything wrong at all with having a good public image, and being a part of the "scene" if that's what you're into. Just as long as it doesn't interfere with the quality of your product/service.
The key phrase here is "political people," meaning people who spend more time and effort on political game playing than value creation. Such people destroy everything they touch, yet they have an uncanny ability to skate from thing to thing.
If I could snap my fingers and remove all such people from history, we would probably be colonizing Alpha Centauri right now.
If I could snap my fingers and remove all such people from history, we would probably be colonizing Alpha Centauri right now.
Golgafrincham already did that and we descended from those 'expelled' telephone sanitizers.
[deleted]
In the same vein of passing scenes and celebrities, here's a beautifully written article by Gary Indiana that appeared in ArtForum in the late 1990s. Indiana, who covered art for the Village Voice back during the mid-1980s, summarizes his impressions of the East Village scene at the time:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Crime+and+Misdemeanors-a057475...
(It's the best link I could find.) Substitute "developer" for "artist", "Brooklyn" for "East Village", and "VC" for "collector", and you get the same thing.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Crime+and+Misdemeanors-a057475...
(It's the best link I could find.) Substitute "developer" for "artist", "Brooklyn" for "East Village", and "VC" for "collector", and you get the same thing.
This dynamic is rampant in the New York tech scene where the wannabes far outnumber the real hackers.
It doesn't bother me, though, because the truth is, it doesn't matter how many times you've met Fred Wilson, or how many times your name shows up in SAI. If you build something that people love, then the VC's and journalists line up around the block. And if you don't? I don't think Union Square has ever written a check because they saw a guy at all the right parties.
Chris Dixon draws the distinction between "builders" and "extractors," (1) which I really like. Are you building something? Or are you trying to take something?
And I do think that coders are in a different category, because even if you're a "scene-y" dev, at least you could build something of value, whereas most of the scenesters (who completely lack code/design/even business backgrounds) never will.
Btw... great post, Brad.
(1) http://cdixon.org/2010/06/19/builders-and-extractors/
It doesn't bother me, though, because the truth is, it doesn't matter how many times you've met Fred Wilson, or how many times your name shows up in SAI. If you build something that people love, then the VC's and journalists line up around the block. And if you don't? I don't think Union Square has ever written a check because they saw a guy at all the right parties.
Chris Dixon draws the distinction between "builders" and "extractors," (1) which I really like. Are you building something? Or are you trying to take something?
And I do think that coders are in a different category, because even if you're a "scene-y" dev, at least you could build something of value, whereas most of the scenesters (who completely lack code/design/even business backgrounds) never will.
Btw... great post, Brad.
(1) http://cdixon.org/2010/06/19/builders-and-extractors/
That's a big reason why I cut back on going to tech meetups and events. It's the same people at each event, people whose main skill is getting publicity for themselves and going to parties, rather than having any technical, creative, or business skill.
Silicon Valley and SF tech companies tend to be incredibly incestuous. I find that companies that are more focused on product building rather than seeking the approval and validation of others in the industry tend to have a useful product.
The problem is that you might be building a product that other SV/SF companies think would be useful, but to the vast majority, of little utility.
The problem is that you might be building a product that other SV/SF companies think would be useful, but to the vast majority, of little utility.
[deleted]
Every profession or even interest has this. Time spent disparaging it is lost.
love it. moved up to mountain view about 6 months ago and met the people that go to every tech event in SF and the valley, everyday. They say they are entrepreneurs but I still don't know what they're doing.
Anybody care to offer an explanation of what he's talking about with his term "the scene"? He doesn't seem to ever define it, and instead assumes that everybody knows what it means.
I made it through that whole article, and still have absolutely no clue what he might be talking about or trying to warn against.
I made it through that whole article, and still have absolutely no clue what he might be talking about or trying to warn against.
The post makes a muddled point by creating the scene as strawman for folks who do nothing but self-aggrandize within their own echo chamber. I agree with how dangerous that is, but how concrete a thing is it? The good and bad of networking all blend together in one big mess. You have to know the good from bad in every interaction you have, and you won't get to know the people you need unless you're critically and self-consciously engaging with the wider tech community.
So I don't honestly think that the scene will kill you all by it's lonesome. It will mess you up if you don't have a plan, and don't know why you're playing in it. The scene will kill if you ignore what Chuck D said: "Don't believe the hype."
So I don't honestly think that the scene will kill you all by it's lonesome. It will mess you up if you don't have a plan, and don't know why you're playing in it. The scene will kill if you ignore what Chuck D said: "Don't believe the hype."
I can definitely relate to the sentiments, but I think giving developers a "pass" on their involvement in The Scene (or maybe their own scene) is letting them (us) off easy.
We have our own superficial criteria for who's hot/not. It's what language you write, how you host, how you deploy, how you test, how you data (Yes it's a verb now. You're welcome).
I know it seems like these are substantive issues. And sometimes they are. But ultimately, as long as a technical solution gets the job done, it's fine. I'm not talking about getting the job done poorly. That's not getting the job done.
And as someone who's working on a very un-sexy project (that I hope will be substantive and meaningful to a lot of people outside this community), I can say being outside the scene is a cold place to be.
I'm not really complaining. Nor offering a solution. So take that.