[tyleo]

Is this true in general? I’ve had the opposite experience. I’d love to see some data if you have any.

[JohnFen]

I have no objective data, only decades of personal experience and observation. It seems true in the majority of cases to me. Enough of a majority that it's a reasonable rule of thumb. The effect is particularly pronounced with websites.

I've even seen it happen in real time with small YouTubers. They get money and start putting it into "production values", then more often than not the quality of their actual substance declines.

Of course, it's not 100%. There are some flashy things that also happen to be decent, and there are nonflashy things that suck. Flashiness is just a general indicator of what the priorities of the maker are.

[brailsafe]

Whether it's true or not, it's definitely a rule I follow for many situations. If a restaurant has loud signage in a busy area, sometimes literally flashing, it ain't gunna be good. Most new websites try to fill negative space with unsubstantial bullshit

[tyleo]

I agree with that example you just shared. I think I don’t view it as the same as your quote though:

> the more obvious effort that has been put into a thing's aesthetics

I would consider that sign example to not be aesthetically pleasing. Maybe it’s more related to the ‘loudness’ of the aesthetics.

There are a lot of simple text blogs on HN which is a great aesthetic, some with lots of thought to keep them simple. Thats the counterpoint IMO.

[brailsafe]

There's an idiom that describes this; "Putting lipstick on a pig".

If a thing looks and feels great, and has something worth making so, then there's no issue at all.