So far in this thread, there are several comments that could be the grounds for substantive discussion, but don't bother offering the substance. For example: Why does jonbarker recommend Anki for going deeper than "complete beginner"? What does zealsham mean by Duolingo lacking a "structural syllabus" and why is that problematic?
The conversations can be a very valuable part of HN, but not if most comments are at the level of "I still find their spaced repetition lacking" with only the tiniest bit of elaboration. Hopefully I'm not out of place in encouraging something more substantive.
Yeah, it's also bugging me. From a perspective of a person that's really into this topic and creates some stuff/software - this is invaluable info, only if would be more descriptive. Unfortunately most people treat such topics as "this title is bogus, my experience is completely different, here's why in one sentence, since I won't waste any second more about this". And that's why I love real world conversations since you can immediately receive feedback just by asking 'oh why is that'. In Internet this question just strikes the emptiness and that person doesn't feel obliged to provide any feedback.
And also makes discussion a mess since commenter doesn't provide any context to challenge that opinion - is he native in X language? Is he student/PhD/professor, etc.
Instead of making a "meta" post complaining, you could reply to those folks with your questions. That might help develop the discussions you would like to see more so than this tactic.
I don't want to repeat myself[0] too much, but: Of course, and to the extent that I want answers to those specific questions I'm happy to ask.
Asking individual questions, though, doesn't encourage a different mindset in the way that I hope my meta-comment will.
Also, I take a bit of issue with calling this "complaining". If you think I could have been even more constructive, please point out how. But I'm not just posting a lamentation, here.
So far in this thread, there are several comments that could be the grounds for substantive discussion, but don't bother offering the substance. For example: Why does jonbarker recommend Anki for going deeper than "complete beginner"? What does zealsham mean by Duolingo lacking a "structural syllabus" and why is that problematic?
The conversations can be a very valuable part of HN, but not if most comments are at the level of "I still find their spaced repetition lacking" with only the tiniest bit of elaboration. Hopefully I'm not out of place in encouraging something more substantive.