←back to thread

424 points notamy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
noobermin ◴[] No.41846756[source]
[flagged]
replies(9): >>41846797 #>>41846834 #>>41847042 #>>41847414 #>>41847513 #>>41847553 #>>41847632 #>>41847662 #>>41851200 #
bitshiftfaced ◴[] No.41847553[source]
> instead of expressing displeasure at the imagined expectations imposed on readers of the article

Well it is the author's expectation, isn't it? I also left the article wondering what in the world conker was. I don't think it matters where the game is from or where the reader lives. It's just good writing to do a bit of explaining for the foreign readers, of which The Guardian knows they have.

replies(2): >>41847569 #>>41847606 #
chmod775 ◴[] No.41847606[source]
Now imagine adding an explanation of american football rules on every article about it, of which there are probably hundreds written a day.

I have no clue about american football rules - I barely know the sport exists, the ball has a funny shape, and that it's popular in the states. Still it would be absolute nonsense to explain their basics every time someone talks about them and I won't expect anyone to do so. Explanations like that will just annoy the vast majority of readers, who will have a preexisting interest in the sport and thus will already be familiar with the rules.

That said, I had even less of a clue what the hell conkers is. Luckily I have basic technological literacy and was able to find the wikipedia article[1] in a fraction of the time it takes one to complain.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conkers

replies(1): >>41847786 #
bitshiftfaced ◴[] No.41847786[source]
No one said it was true for every game. Conker is more akin to corn hole than football, but maybe even more obscure.
replies(1): >>41847964 #
foldr ◴[] No.41847964[source]
It's not obscure in the UK. You can find any number of equally 'obscure' cultural practices referenced in American newspapers without explanation. It's unreasonable to expect a British newspaper to be free of British cultural background assumptions just because it's viewable by an international audience.
replies(1): >>41848329 #
bitshiftfaced ◴[] No.41848329[source]
It appears that about 38% of visits to their site come from the UK, so it might be that the majority of their readers aren't familiar with conker. https://www.similarweb.com/website/theguardian.com/#geograph...

I guess your point makes sense, though. There isn't the obligation to explain anything. I just personally think it's good writing to anticipate what your readers may not likely understand.

replies(1): >>41848635 #
1. foldr ◴[] No.41848635[source]
The NYT has 150 million monthly readers globally of which 27% are international. I still wouldn't expect it to insert helpful explainers every time it mentions a cultural phenomenon specific to the US.