This wasn't a minor limitation; it was a fundamental capability gap. Users were forced to learn ClickHouse SQL, write raw queries, and maintain them as our schemas evolved. We'd built a query builder that couldn't handle real-world queries.
What is it with the LinkedIn style?
No X
No Y
No Z
Isn't A its B
Heh. But seriously, all frontier models do it, it's in the top 3 of tells that even someone with zero LLM experience can spot.
Our articles are now being read by stakeholders beyond our ICP.
I agree that LinkedIn/ChatGPT style isn't the best route. We cringe on it too. We are experimenting to find a middle ground between what gets more reach, while not giving into the trending writing styles.
Can I please get some more feedback from you?
- would you prefer more technical details in this article? - or just a change in the sentence structure that is more natural (like this response)? - or both?
I would rather not read other people's slop. I could pass your article through an LLM myself, if I wanted that. Here's just one of the most tired snowclones that current LLMs love, everywhere in your content:
>This wasn't a minor limitation; it was a fundamental capability gap
>context-switch not just between data types, but between entirely different mental models of how to query data.
>This wasn't something we asked them to do. They discovered that the query builder could now handle their complex cases, and they preferred it over raw SQL.
>That's not just a technical achievement. That's validation that we finally understood the problem we were trying to solve.
It wasn't just a minor stylistic issue; It was a signal to close the page.
Everyone else managed to read it fine.
Overall I found it a decent piece, a few too many "<term>: <explanation>" blocks for my taste but better than what I can write - and than most of the tech-industry blogging I come across.
But you could survey more people as maybe it is just me!