Was this meant to be funny or demonstrate a lot of personality? (as in: you will endure all this rough English because the message is so important). I am probably not getting the humor but I found it an obnoxious read. All this to tell you "Don't be boring - do something different"? I could imagine a much better article on that topic.
I am reminded of "Thag the Caveman" asking for help on network printing or some such thing, or perhaps of the "Hulk Feminist" tweeter. Sometimes, bad form is a form. Lighten up?
I guess the point is to be memorable to at least a small group of people, rather than correct and bland and forgotten by all.
One thing this blog post highlights strongly, albeit accidentally, is that if you are going to have a personality it is important to have the right personality for your market. Having the wrong personality can set you back in ways ranging from not being taken seriously- and therefore having a greater hill to climb, to being offensive- and therefore being locked out of your market/audience.
This blog post reads closer to something that I expect to see on a joke or casual chat forum than something I expect to see on a VC's blog.
Having said that, I also think the message is spot-on. In particular, I thought the advice under "How not be boring" was clear, simple, and compelling.
This one being so much more successful illustrates one of three things: (1) the personality helped or (2) people think the content in this post is more interesting than that one was or (3) pg fixed the problem that makes it harder for items to reach the front page if they're submitted too early in the morning Pacific time.
The reason it illustrated the hazards of a "wrong personality" not because it harmed Fred's particular brand, but because it was so startling that the reader can immediately see how having a "wrong personality" can have a lasting impact. This isn't a problem for Fred (except possibly for new readers), but could be for someone who is still trying to build his brand.
In other words, if this were the personality of the blog (or, say, if Zed Shaw's online personality were the personality of the blog), online readers would have a different impression of Fred Wilson the VC.
This one being so much more successful
Only if the sole purpose of the blog was to get attention and create discussion as to the writing style of the blog.
No. But I would venture that I wouldn't necessarily choose to measure the success of a blog by its upvotes on HN. Especially when, as it was when I first commented, that the majority of comments were about the writing style and were negative.
It's supposed to be an online version of Grimlock from Transformers. He's part of a clan or robots that all talk in third person and have broken English.
That being said, I thought it was a thoughtful read with good points, and absolutely hilarious. I've spread it to 5 of my start-up friends who would get the Transformers reference already.
People love personality in products, like the MailChimp helping you along when creating your email newsletter, or w00ts hilarious product descriptions. Wufoo even does this by having a t-rex be the log in button and a title tag that says "RARRR!"
Is it really enjoyable? You are begging the question. Things or people may have a distinct personality, but I don't enjoy bad personalities, even if I remember them.
It seems like most successful things will not be enjoyed by everyone, hence the common thought that if everyone likes what you are doing something is probably wrong.
