[leapis]

> Why on earth would you bet your money on some random tool you don't even understand? ... I built a tool for people who knew what harmonic patterns were.

The tool is for drawing "technical analysis indicators", one of the most convoluted ways to ascribe meaning to a random process and something that will only ever be true in the self-fulfilling sense. I don't think it's a surprise that some users are willing to blindly trust the tool, when all users of it are blindly trusting concepts that are built on sand.

Although I'm sure the author is burnt out from the experience now, I'd be interested in hearing how their next side project venture goes- is the experience more enjoyable when you're dealing with a user base that self-selects differently? Or do all users suck equally, just in different ways?

[Lutger]

At least half of the interactions that are presented as terrible, I feel are actually quite normal and potentially even pleasant. If you don't actually enjoy talking about your product with 'beginners' or even just normal people, then maybe reconsider the customer support role?

For me this reads as 'I don't enjoy voluntary customer support' rather than my customers suck.

[mannykannot]

I see only one single sentence - "others had very basic questions, answers to which were given in the description of each script" - that might be referring to situations where people were seeking either clarification (including cases where the answer was in the documentation, but not obviously so) or advice on how to use the tool more effectively, (I exclude bald requests for 'hot tips' or source code from those categories.)

For all I know, the author might have both received and responded substantively (with more than RTFM) to many such requests, but has not mentioned them here because they were not part of the problem.